[/QUOTE]
I am running out of time now.
On pages 15-20 you speculate about remote controling of planes, about poison gas, etc.
I note that you provide no material evidence from the four flights to back up that claim.
Fact is, Boeing 767s and 757s could not have been manipulated for remote control or autopilot without pilots retaking control.
Material evidence has been posted here at JREF by user... A... grrrr don't remember his name. An aircraft technician.
What’s the probability for :
1- All 8 pilots of the flight were unable to key the “four digit hijack code” into their keyboard? Zero. The only explanation is “they were killed almost immediately without being aware about what was happening”. That implies the use of poison gas.
2- The terrorists to takeover the first plane exactly within the 16 seconds time gap between two orders of the flight controller Pete Zalewski? Zero probably again. The only possibility is that Pete Zalewski ( a Jew people ) was part of the team and he managed to give two successive orders within 16 seconds to check if the poison gas killed the pilots: First order to establish the communication line with the pilots and permit to the central team to switch on the on board missile control system; second order to check that the pilots will not answer, they are dead.
Page 21: You claim there are more videos that show the Pentagon strike.
Fact is: No, such videos do not exist.
You provide no material evidence for your claim.
See slide 23, “camera pole” on the highway.
Page 22-25: The photos are insufficient to back up your claims that the damage path was too narrow
Why? The satellite photos can be considered as flat, they are taken from long distance. Scaling one known dimension is enough to get all dimensions right scaled. So a photo can be used for distance measurements. Also, Google map uses such method.
Page 26-29 rehashes very old arguments from sources you deem unreliable yourself
Here, I show why they are unreliable.
Page 33: Your claim "Official theory: Kerosene fire highly weakend the metal and made the tower collapse" is FALSE. Fact is: The burning office contents provided a lot more heat than the fuel. Also, plane crash damage played an important role, too.
Your claim "heating is a speculation object" is only partially true. In fact, fire science knows a lot about heating in fires. It is much less speculation than your theory
Your claim "dark smoke shows low temperature" is false. Many office contents burn very hot yet have dark smoke. Also, dark smoke from cooler spots may mix with exhausts from very hot spots, making it all seem dark.
Your claim "no steel framed building collapsing by fire" is false. Many steel framed buildings have collapsed by fire. Example: Kader toy factory.
Your claim "bottom levels of the buildings were not heated at all" is irrelevant. They were not designed to arrest the dynamic load of an already collapsing top. You apparently don't understand structural engineering. Look up the papers by Zdenek Bazhant.
In WTC2, people crossed the impact level while there was fire in opposite corner. So the heat was not enough.
Zdenek Bazant is a liar Jew. The lower sections of the buildings were too much stronger, the upper part did not collapse in one single part from top to bottom; so the bottom structure was able to withstand the collapse of the upper parts. In WTC1, the structure bored the collapse and 16 people gathered alive from floor 1 to 22. Bazant was the big liar.
It’s only 4 floor a large platforme which was heated by the fire of stored toys (huge amount of fire) and the steel was not fire protected. This is not 111 floor twin towers with 52x22 inches massive steel columns.
Page 34 misrepresents the NIST reports, and gives no references
Page 35 makes false claims
It’s the best picture of the NIST report; their main claim is “the main structure is the outer columns and the floor trusses and the hat truss; the inner core section is minor part of the structure”. That’s enough to tell it’s full of lies.
Page 36 makes an irrelevant claim - the apparent size of columns in a drawing is not important
The initial size of the columns is the inner box; the outer box was added to show them bigger. That’s manipulation and lying.
Page 37: Same mistake
Page 38 makes an undefined claim
Let’s be a little bit more sincere please.
Pages 39-41 speculate. No engineering qualification behind those fantasies
Do not misrepresent my engineering qualifications, consider them definitely strong enough and try to give strong argument.
Page 42 misrepresents the "official reports"
There is no misrepresentation. See the FEMA report, they represented outer and inner columns in the same dimensions in their fire scenario.
Page 43 is irrelevant (WTC wasn't concrete structure)
You are right, WTC was steel structure, not concrete. But they are both based on the same principle of “tube inside tube”; means the “core tube inside the outer columns tube”.
Page 44 makes unsupported claims by a layman
Pages 45+46 contradict pages 39-41
The shortening of the sentences shows how weak are your arguments. Let’s be sincere and able to admit the truth.
47-49 speculate
49.1-50 are without evidence
You should make the study yourself. That demolition method is consistent with all visible evidence, videos, images, structure of the buildings, …
52-54 make a false claims about the damage by explosives
And you were unable to speak out about the slide 54.1, it definitely kills all arguments. So much that you stopped to tell anything.
etc.
etc.
etc.
We see that your entire presentations is full of errors of fact, and void of evidence.
Sorry, but my work is sincere and consistent with all known evidence. Let’s be sincere and admit that it’s the truth! The truth is for all humanity, without the truth and justice made for 9/11, there could be too many other strikes and mass murders. If we want to protect humanity from such murder actions we must work sincerely.
