Former BBC Presenter Now Admits 9/11 was an Inside Job

[Winston]

Video and article below.





http://www.infowars.com/top-constructio ... emolition/

Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed By Controlled Demolition

Paul Joseph Watson

Respected Middle East expert and former BBC presenter Alan Hart has broken his silence on 9/11, by revealing that the world’s most prominent civil engineering company told him directly that the collapse of the twin towers was a controlled demolition.

Speaking on the Kevin Barrett show yesterday, Hart said he thought the 9/11 attack probably started as a Muslim operation headed up by Osama Bin Laden but that the plot was subsequently hijacked and carried out by Mossad agents in collusion with elements of the CIA, adding that since its formation, Israel has penetrated every Arab government and terrorist organization.

“My guess is that at an early point they said to the bad guys in the CIA – hey this operation’s running what do we do, and the zionists and the neo-cons said let’s use it,� said Hart, making reference to how top neo-cons like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their fellow Project For a New American Century authors had called for a “catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor,� the year before 9/11.

“The twin towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion, not the planes,� said Hart, adding that this view was based on his close friendship with consultants who work with the world’s leading civil engineering and construction firm.

Hart asked the company to study the collapse of the twin towers, after which they told him directly, “There’s absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion.�

Hart then explained how the five dancing Israelis seen celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center in New Jersey as it unfolded, who turned out to be Mossad agents, proves at at a minimum Israel knew the attack was going to happen. Hart went further in speculating that the planes had been fitted with transponders and that the Israelis were guiding them in to the towers.

Host Barrett pointed out that to carry out the successful controlled demolition of three of the biggest buildings in history, the conspirators would have to ensure that they were hit, making the use of remote controlled airliners a distinct possibility. In addition, Barrett mentioned the fact that he had interviewed numerous pilots who dismissed the chances of accurately guiding a huge commercial airliner into a building while flying at sea level at around 600 miles per hour, especially considering the alleged 9/11 hijackers struggled to even fly basic Cessna light aircraft.

“Sounding a chilling note, Hart added that the U.S. is in grave danger of an Israeli-instigated false-flag nuclear attack, perhaps using an American nuclear weapon stolen from Minot Air Force Base during the “loose nukes� rogue operation of August, 2007. The motive would be to trigger a U.S. war with Iran, and perhaps to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine under cover of war–which Hart is convinced the Zionists are planning to do as soon as the opportunity presents itself,� writes host Barratt.

Given his biography and standing, Hart’s comments are not to be taken lightly. Hart is a former Middle East Chief Correspondent for ITN News and has also presented for BBC Panorama specializing in the Middle East. He was also a war reporter in Vietnam and the first journalist to reach Suez Canal with the Israeli army in 1967. Over the decades, Hart has developed close relationships with numerous high profile political figures, including the Shah of Iran, Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres.

Hart has been a successful author for years and has no reason to fabricate the fact that a top construction firm told him point blank that the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition.

In forwarding this information, Hart joins legions of other credible experts who to some extent or other have all publicly challenged the official 9/11 story, with many outright stating that the attacks were an inside job, people like 20-year decorated CIA veteran Robert Baer, who told a radio host that “the evidence points at� 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job.

In addition, no less than 1198 architectural and engineering specialists have signed a petition demanding Congress re-open an official investigation into the 9/11 attack and the collapse of the twin towers.

[Rock]

Look, I don't like dwelling on this shit cus I know I'm powerless to do anything about it. But the one issue which always confused me, even before I was made aware of the building 3 collapse has been:

How is it that such tall buildings collapsed almost perfectly straight down? I used remember watching a Discovery Channel episode a long time ago about the biggest firm in the world which demolishes buildings (forgot the name). I watched lots of Vegas buildings collapse and the enormous Robert Taylor Housing Projects near my first uni being demolished. Now here's the thing:

These guys strongly emphasized that the most difficult part of this job was putting the proper amounts of explosives in the right places to ensure the building would fall straight down, not tilt and fall into other buildings. This is where the job required the most technical skill and expertise. Small errors could to disaster. The job required great precision. And I think the taller the building, the bigger this challenge was.

Now here we have 2 planes flying into skyscrapers, both buildings burning for 10s of minutes, then like magic, they collapse just like the controlled demolitions I watched on that episode, the ones which required near technical perfection not to go wrong. How is that possible? Just a simple commons sense explanation would be great. I sure as hell can't come-up with one.

[onezero4u]

jet fuel from two planes brought those 3 separate skyscrapers down...

its not rocket science...its magic and propaganda & a handful of muslims with box cutter.

[Asia Outback]

“The twin towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion, not the planes,� said Hart, adding that this view was
based on his close friendship with consultants who work with the world’s leadingcivil engineering and construction firm."

I talked to the same consultants and they said it was not so.


Jake

[Winston]

Look, I don't like dwelling on this shit cus I know I'm powerless to do anything about it. But the one issue which always confused me, even before I was made aware of the building 3 collapse has been:

How is it that such tall buildings collapsed almost perfectly straight down? I used remember watching a Discovery Channel episode a long time ago about the biggest firm in the world which demolishes buildings (forgot the name). I watched lots of Vegas buildings collapse and the enormous Robert Taylor Housing Projects near my first uni being demolished. Now here's the thing:

These guys strongly emphasized that the most difficult part of this job was putting the proper amounts of explosives in the right places to ensure the building would fall straight down, not tilt and fall into other buildings. This is where the job required the most technical skill and expertise. Small errors could to disaster. The job required great precision. And I think the taller the building, the bigger this challenge was.

Now here we have 2 planes flying into skyscrapers, both buildings burning for 10s of minutes, then like magic, they collapse just like the controlled demolitions I watched on that episode, the ones which required near technical perfection not to go wrong. How is that possible? Just a simple commons sense explanation would be great. I sure as hell can't come-up with one.

Good point. It's never happened before or after 9/11. If you could demo buildings that easily with fire, then the demolition companies would be out of business. See the poster below.



The official explanation is that fire from the jet fuels caused the steel to weaken and buckle, which caused a progressive collapse. However, those are just words. That theory has never been proven in science or any tests with miniature models.

First, steel melts at 2750 degrees F, while office fires can only go up to 1200 F maximum. Second, even if the steel did melt, it still wouldn't go through 300,000 tons of concrete like thin air and pulverize the concrete to dust. A fire collapse is gradual, uneven, and pieces would fall over to the side, not straight down. Third, the third tower, WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a plane, yet it collapsed in 6 seconds.

So, many things don't add up, and the official explanations are just words. They don't hold water if you analyze them.

But for some reason, even highly intelligent people (including some on this forum, you know who you are) have trouble conceiving that such a thing could be a conspiracy. They have some mental block against it.

[Winston]

jet fuel from two planes brought those 3 separate skyscrapers down...

its not rocket science...its magic and propaganda & a handful of muslims with box cutter.

And a gullible public that believes everything they hear and that "authority = truth".

[globetrotter]

How is it that such tall buildings collapsed almost perfectly straight down? I used remember watching a Discovery Channel episode a long time ago about the biggest firm in the world which demolishes buildings (forgot the name). I watched lots of Vegas buildings collapse and the enormous Robert Taylor Housing Projects near my first uni being demolished.

10 years later and you guys still lack the curiosity to figure this out? This has been gone over repeatedly since then.

WTC had construction like the Standard Oil/Aon Building in Chicago.

It consisted of two tubes in a tubular steel-framed structural system.

One the exterior with 22" spaced metal supports and one the interior concrete core.

The concrete floors sprung between the two tubes.

This method was super hi-tech in 1973, and it is very common in the world for very tall buildings.

These buildings are not built like a 20 storey office building or the Empire State Building or your school or your apartment. Those buildings are steel framed girders or concrete supports throughout the interior of the building to hold it up.

Tragically what happens if one floor loses structural integrity is that the metal supports spaced out 22" act as a funnel or chimney and the building collapses straight down, into the pipe of the exterior metal tube. This is obvious as one watches any of the thousands of videos of the collapses that day.

I could go over this a billion times but your belief system precludes the scientific knowledge and logic to grok what I post.

What you guys have now is a Religion.

Believing that WTC was due to a controlled demo and CT is just like believing in Islam, Catholicism or Life After Death or any other irrational, faith-based belief system.

You have no proof, when you encounter arguments to the contrary like mine you will dismiss them, and then in a while you will return to your flawed faith-based belief system.

None of you even understand a basic equation like KE = .50 X m X v ^2, or PE = mgh, or how many joules of energy is needed to melt one pound of steel, or what that means, or how that applies to your theories and the discussions in this thread.

I may as well be attempting to convince you that there is no God, or no Jesus.

You will believe what you want to believe and no amount of science, reason or logic will ever change that.

I will leave you alone to idly speculate again as you will, forever.

[Rock]

How is it that such tall buildings collapsed almost perfectly straight down? I used remember watching a Discovery Channel episode a long time ago about the biggest firm in the world which demolishes buildings (forgot the name). I watched lots of Vegas buildings collapse and the enormous Robert Taylor Housing Projects near my first uni being demolished.

10 years later and you guys still lack the curiosity to figure this out? This has been gone over repeatedly since then.

WTC had construction like the Standard Oil/Aon Building in Chicago.

It consisted of two tubes in a tubular steel-framed structural system.

One the exterior with 22" spaced metal supports and one the interior concrete core.

The concrete floors sprung between the two tubes.

This method was super hi-tech in 1973, and it is very common in the world for very tall buildings.

These buildings are not built like a 20 storey office building or the Empire State Building or your school or your apartment. Those buildings are steel framed girders or concrete supports throughout the interior of the building to hold it up.

Tragically what happens if one floor loses structural integrity is that the metal supports spaced out 22" act as a funnel or chimney and the building collapses straight down, into the pipe of the exterior metal tube. This is obvious as one watches any of the thousands of videos of the collapses that day.

I could go over this a billion times but your belief system precludes the scientific knowledge and logic to grok what I post.

What you guys have now is a Religion.

Believing that WTC was due to a controlled demo and CT is just like believing in Islam, Catholicism or Life After Death or any other irrational, faith-based belief system.

You have no proof, when you encounter arguments to the contrary like mine you will dismiss them, and then in a while you will return to your flawed faith-based belief system.

None of you even understand a basic equation like KE = .50 X m X v ^2, or PE = mgh, or how many joules of energy is needed to melt one pound of steel, or what that means, or how that applies to your theories and the discussions in this thread.

I may as well be attempting to convince you that there is no God, or no Jesus.

You will believe what you want to believe and no amount of science, reason or logic will ever change that.

I will leave you alone to idly speculate again as you will, forever.

Why so defensive? It was just an innocent request for a common sense explanation from a non-expert. There are plenty of respected experts in both camps who have put out with elaborate explanations as to why or why not it could have been an inside job. If those equations really make it so clear, why is there still so much disagreement between the experts?

BTW, Since you seem to be so sure of your own grasp of the basic science involved, how do you explain the building 7 collapse? Was it also constructed like the Standard Oil Building?

I don't want to believe anything. I'm just seeking the truth. I have no dogs in this fight. Perhaps it is possible to formulate some sort of mathematical proof as to why or why not official explanation of 911 is valid. But it requires a hell of a lot more than throwing-up a couple of equations from your dusty old physics or chemistry textbooks.

[Winston]

Globetrotter,
Anyone can use equations and numbers to prove anything they want. The problem is, they are just words. The reality is that NO ONE has been able to replicate the collapse with miniature models or experiments.

Hollow tubes? Are you referring to the elevator shafts? lol What about the 47 steel core columns? See here:

http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/kp_towers.htm

Check out this FAQ too:

http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/faq.htm

Myth Number 8: Official Reports have explained why the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed.

This claim suffers from the same problem as the previous one: We have had three explanations, each of which contradicts the others and none of which is anywhere close to adequate. The first explanation, widely disseminated through television specials, was that the buildings collapsed because their steel columns were melted by the jet-fuel-fed fires. But this explanation contained many problems, the most obvious of which is that steel does not begin to melt until about 2800 degrees F, while open fires based on hydrocarbons such as kerosene—which is what jet fuel is—cannot under the most ideal circumstances rise above 1700 degrees.

A second explanation, endorsed by The 9/11 Commission Report, is a "pancake" theory, according to which the fires, while not melting the steel, heated it up sufficiently to cause the floors weakened by the airplane strikes to break loose from the steel columns—both those in the core of the building and those around the outside. All the floors above the strike zone hence fell down on the floor below the strike zone, causing it to break free, and this started a chain reaction, so the floors pancaked all the way down. But this explanation also suffered from many problems, the most obvious of which was that it could not explain why the buildings collapsed into a pile of rubble only a few stories high. The core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of 47 massive steel columns. If the floors had broken loose from them, these columns would have still been sticking up a thousand feet in the air. The 9/11 Commission Report tried to cover up this problem by claiming that the core of each tower consisted of "a hollow steel shaft."62 But those massive steel columns could not be wished away.

The definitive explanation was supposed to be the third one, issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, often simply called NIST. The NIST Report claimed that when the floors collapsed, they, rather than breaking free from the columns, pulled on them, causing the perimeter columns to become unstable. This instability then increased the gravity load on the core columns, which had been weakened by tremendously hot fires in the core, which, NIST claims, reached 1832°F, and this combination of factors resulted in "global collapse."63

But, as physicists Jim Hoffman and Steven Jones have shown, this account is riddled with problems. One of these is that NIST's claim about tremendously hot fires in the core is completely unsupported by evidence. NIST's own studies found no evidence that any of the core columns had reached temperatures of even 482°F (250°C).64 A second problem is that, even if this sequence of events had occurred, NIST provided no explanation as to why it would have produced global—that is, total—collapse. The NIST Report asserts that "column failure" occurred in the core as well as the perimeter columns. But this remains a bare assertion. There is no plausible explanation of why the core columns would have broken, or even buckled, so as to produce global collapse.65

And this is only to begin to enumerate the problems in NIST's theory, all of which follow from the fact that it, like the previous two theories, is essentially a fire theory, according to which the buildings were brought down primarily by fire. In the case of the Twin Towers, of course, the impact of the airplanes is said to have played a role. But most experts who support the official theory attribute the collapses primarily to the fires. NIST, for example, says that the main contribution of the airplanes, aside from providing jet fuel, was to dislodge a lot of the fire-proofing from the steel, thereby making it vulnerable to the fires.66 But these fire-theories face several formidable problems.

First, the fires in these three buildings were not very hot, very big, or very long-lasting, compared with fires in some steel-frame high-rises that did not collapse. A 1991 fire in Philadelphia burned 18 hours, and a 2004 fire in Caracas burned 17 hours, without causing even a partial collapse.67 By contrast, the fires in the north and south towers burned only 102 and 56 minutes, respectively, before they collapsed, and neither fire, unlike the Philadelphia and Caracas fires, was hot enough to break windows.

Second, total collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have never—either before or after 9/11—been brought about by fire alone, or fire combined with externally produced structural damage. The collapse of Building 7 has been recognized as especially difficult to explain. It was not hit by a plane, so the explanation has to rely on fire alone, and yet, because there was no jet fuel to get a big fire started, this building had fires on only two or three floors, according to several witnesses68 and all the photographic evidence.69 FEMA admitted that the best explanation it could come up with it had "only a low probability of occurrence."70 The 9/11 Commission Report implicitly admitted that it could not explain the collapse of Building 7 by not even mentioning it. The NIST Report, which could not claim that the fire-proofing had gotten knocked off the steel of this building, has yet to offer an explanation as to why it collapsed.

And NIST, like the 9/11 Commission, evidently did not want citizens asking why Building 7 collapsed even though it was not hit by a plane. On its Website, it says that one of its objectives is to determine "why and how World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft"—thereby implying that building 7, like the Twin Towers, was hit by a plane.71

In any case, a third problem with the official account of the collapse of these three buildings is that all prior and subsequent total collapses of steel-frame high-rises have been caused by explosives in the procedure known as "controlled demolition." This problem is made even more severe by the fact that the collapses of these three buildings manifested many standard features of the most difficult type of controlled demolition, known as implosion. I will mention seven such features.

First, the collapses began suddenly. Steel, if weakened by fire, would gradually begin to sag. But as one can see from videos available on the Web,72 all three buildings are completely motionless up to the moment they begin to collapse.

Second, if these huge buildings had toppled over, they would have caused enormous death and destruction. But they came straight down. This straight-down collapse is the whole point of the type of controlled demolition called implosion, which only a few companies in the world can perform.73

Third, these buildings collapsed at virtually free-fall speed, which means that the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, were offering no resistance to the upper floors.

Fourth, as mentioned earlier, the collapses were total collapses, resulting in piles of rubble only a few stories high. This means that the enormous steel columns in the core of each building had to be broken into rather short segments—which is what explosives do.

Fifth, great quantities of molten steel were produced, which means that the steel had been heated up to several thousand degrees. Witnesses during the clean-up reported, moreover, that sometimes when a piece of steel was lifted out of the rubble, molten metal would be dripping from the end.74

Sixth, according to many fire fighters, medical workers, journalists, and World Trade Center employees, many explosions went off before and after the collapses. For example, Fire Captain Dennis Tardio, speaking of the south tower, said: "I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom."75 Firefighter Richard Banaciski said: "It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."76 Thanks to the release in August of 2005 of the oral histories recorded by the Fire Department of New York shortly after 9/11, dozens of testimonies of this type are now available. I have published an essay on them, which will be included—along with an essay on "The Destruction of the World Trade Center," which I am here summarizing—in a forthcoming book on 9/11 and Christian faith.77

A seventh feature of controlled implosions is the production of large quantities of dust. In the case of the Twin Towers, virtually everything except the steel—all the concrete, desks, computers—was pulverized into very tiny dust particles.78

The official theory cannot explain one, let alone all seven, of these features—at least, as Jim Hoffman and Steven Jones have pointed out, without violating several basic laws of physics.79 But the theory of controlled demolition easily explains all these features.

These facts are inconsistent with the idea that al-Qaeda terrorists were responsible. Foreign terrorists could not have obtained access to the buildings for the hours needed to plant the explosives. Terrorists working for the Bush-Cheney administration, by contrast, could have gotten such access, given the fact that Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker III—the president's brother and cousin, respectively—were principals of the company in charge of security for the World Trade Center.80 Al-Qaeda terrorists would also probably not have had the courtesy to ensure that these huge buildings came straight down, rather than falling over onto other buildings. They also would not have had the necessary expertise.

Another relevant fact is that evidence was destroyed. An examination of the buildings' steel beams and columns could have shown whether explosives had been used to slice them. But virtually all of the steel was removed before it could be properly examined,81 then put on ships to Asia to be melted down.82 It is usually a federal offense to remove anything from a crime scene. But here the removal of over 100 tons of steel, the biggest destruction of evidence in history, was carried out under the supervision of federal officials.83

Evidence was also apparently planted. The passport of one of the hijackers on Flight 11 was allegedly found in the rubble, having survived the fire caused by the crash into the north tower and also whatever caused everything else in this building except the steel to be pulverized.84 As a story in the Guardian said, "the idea that [this] passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged would [test] the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism."85

To sum up: The idea that US officials have given a satisfactory, or even close to satisfactory, explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings is a myth. And they have implicitly admitted this by refusing to engage in rational debate about it. For example, Michael Newman, a spokesman for NIST, reportedly said during a recent interview that "none of the NIST scientists would participate in any public debate" with scientists who reject their report. When Newman was asked why NIST would avoid public debate if it had confidence in its report, Newman replied: "Because there is no winning in such debates."85 In that same interview, Newman had compared people who reject the government's account of the collapses with people who believe in Bigfoot and a flat earth.86 And yet he fears that his scientists would not be able to show up these fools in a public debate!

[Winston]

Globetrotter, check out these statements by many professionally accredited engineers who dispute the official version of 9/11 and the collapse of the WTC:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

The engineers are named and documented. If the issue was a simple open and shut case, then why are so many credible experts disputing it?

Also, check out what a top demolitions expert in Europe said:

Danny Jowenko – Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction company, with offices in the Netherlands. Founded 1980, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie is certified and holds permits to comply with the Dutch Explosives for Civil Use Act and the German Explosives Act. Jowenko's explosives engineers also hold the German Certificate of Qualifications and the European Certificate for Shotfiring issued by The European Federation of Explosive Engineers.

* Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:

Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.

Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right.

Jeff Hill: And I've come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn't have came down by fire.

Danny Jowenko: No, it -- absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?

Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.

Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you've looked at the building, you've looked at the video and you've determined with your expertise that --

Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: OK, 'cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder -- I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, "There's no way that's true."

Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: 'Cause if anybody was -- Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , "Oh, it's possible it came down from fire" and this and that and stuff like that --.

Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone. You know?

Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?

Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.

Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, "Pull it" in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn't -- didn't want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened and they didn't want to say it.

Danny Jowenko: Exactly . http://www.pumpitout.com


* Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." Watch the collapse video here. And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.


* Website: http://www.jowenko.nl/

[onezero4u]

globetrotter...how do you explain something doesnt exist??/

are you omnipresent & omniscient as well as all aware ?

[globetrotter]

globetrotter...how do you explain something doesnt exist??/

are you omnipresent & omniscient as well as all aware ?

More irrationality, illogic and nonsense from the CT believers...

[globetrotter]

Why so defensive? It was just an innocent request for a common sense explanation from a non-expert. There are plenty of respected experts in both camps who have put out with elaborate explanations as to why or why not it could have been an inside job. If those equations really make it so clear, why is there still so much disagreement between the experts?

Consensus and agreement is not fact.
Disagreement is not the refutation of fact.

If you had any education in math, science or physics you would know that all science fact has those who disagree with it, and you would know that disagreement does not refute existing fact.

Your standard for 'proof' is simply wrong.

You think that no one should disagree for something to be accepted, and that has not been the case in the Western Scientific Method - ever.

Don't you guys know this?

This is the stuff of a basic education - didn't you learn what The Scientific Method was?...

[Rock]

Why so defensive? It was just an innocent request for a common sense explanation from a non-expert. There are plenty of respected experts in both camps who have put out with elaborate explanations as to why or why not it could have been an inside job. If those equations really make it so clear, why is there still so much disagreement between the experts?

Consensus and agreement is not fact.
Disagreement is not the refutation of fact.

If you had any education in math, science or physics you would know that all science fact has those who disagree with it, and you would know that disagreement does not refute existing fact.

Your standard for 'proof' is simply wrong.

You think that no one should disagree for something to be accepted, and that has not been the case in the Western Scientific Method - ever.

Don't you guys know this?

This is the stuff of a basic education - didn't you learn what The Scientific Method was?...

What's your point Einstein? You say it didn't happen as if it were fact. So where's your proof???

[Asia Outback]

GT-

"Consensus and agreement is not fact.
Disagreement is not the refutation of fact.

If you had any education in math, science or physics you would know that all science fact has those who disagree with it, and you would know that disagreement does not refute existing fact.

Your standard for 'proof' is simply wrong.

You think that no one should disagree for something to be accepted, and that has not been the case in the Western Scientific Method - ever.

Don't you guys know this?

This is the stuff of a basic education - didn't you learn what The Scientific Method was?..."

What in the hell is going on here? I think you are trying to impose your western linear hierarchical values on creative thinkers!
Just how will US public education products have any discussion at all if they stick to your narrow minded view of reality?
Most of the New World Order uses scientific methods in constructing the tools of their oppression. The scientific method is just words, and who is to say whose words are superior Einstein? Obviously, alternatives to the scientific method must be found in the NWO is to be successfully resisted. Deep thinkers are able to see beyond the scientific method. They can use "resonance" to find the truths too deep for science! You need to be more open minded I suspect. Meanwhile, with your stay in China giving you language skills, you can be on the cutting edge of the merging new American reality, sans meaningful logic or reasoning powers, by passing on what will be the most valuable phrase for this transcendent new American reality...I suspect this will be very valuable in the American future- Folks in the USA must learn the Chinese phrase for " Yes boss , I will get that right away!". I suppose the phrase "Yes boss, I'm your bitch." might be a good back-up.

For entertainment purposes only, any resemblance to any meaningful reality is purely coincidental.


Jake