9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories Part 1 of 2

Debunking the lies of 9/11:

9/11 Science Report Appendix B WTC fire temperature discussion:
http://www.gallerize.com/9-11/911_Sci...

http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html

http://forums.liveleak.com/showthread...

The Top Ten Connections Between
NIST and Nano-Thermites:

http://911review.com/articles/ryan/ni...

Analysis of Physics of WTC collapse:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/ener...

John Gross video of NIST caught lying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcqf5t...
Richard Gage (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth) going over the facts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9qEIl...
http://www.AE911Truth.org

A complete 9/11 Timeline:
http://www.HistoryCommons.org

A complete listing of ALL officially sourced news articles which show evidence of a conspiracy:
http://911ArticlesOnline.com

Do your research!

• Category

  Science & Technology

[soundman420]

Look you are driving this away from the facts and making it more about a word you invented (enternet) than the topic at hand (9/11). There was no cover up. No explosives. No thermite. It was an outside job. In 12 years the truth movement hasn't provided a single shred of credible evidence to support their theories. If you still want to believe otherwise I don't give a fuck.

[packr72]

I think you have been eating too many thermite paint chips

[scooter2ish]

the evidence? like black boxes being destroyed but drivers liscences and passports surviving? yes when "they" tell me what happened and how it was "those guys over there" that did it, when they are known to lie and cover up. then yes I qjuestion every thing they tell me

[Sara Ustick]

If a 6.0 earthquake can bring down a bridge as it did to the Bay Bridge in 1989 then wouldn't it stand to reason that fire could bring down a building? Or is that Bush's fault too?

[Sara Ustick]

So blowtorches don't melt metal according to this guy then I guess?

[Xvanish820]

Retarded

[soundman420]

So by default whenever something happens you just take the anti-government stance without examining the evidence?

[soundman420]

Steve Wright safely debunks that bs on Hardfire, go watch it. And if you are claiming something else hit the towers, the burden of proof is on YOU to explain what happened. Have fun with that.

[Finley Cardenas]

actually what George Bush said was fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on... shame on... not gonna fool me again. I still dont understand what it is you "dont believe them on this one" about but it sound like we are in agreement that the towers were not controlled demolition and there in fact were hijackers who did this so good stuff, thanks for the discussion. im gonna go pester some of those TV Fakery retards

[scooter2ish]

my stance is U.S. govt. is responsible (not for not protecting us) but for lying about their involvement in so many other "events" that I dont believe them on this one. it's like the children's story "the boy who cried wolf" or as G.W.Bush tried to saty once "you fool me once shame on you, you fool me twice shame on me"