Il ne faut même pas remonter de dix page pour trouver deux débarquements de complotistes ( qui s'inscrivent sur HFR uniquement poster un message ici et ne pas revenir ) dont les posts puent l'arrogance, qualifient leurs contradicteurs de staliniens (j'ai déja eu droit à un "nazi" ), se réclament du sauvetage de la Vérité et de la Démocratie.  Alors bon sur sur 630 pages  et 4ans on en a vu avant toi.

Il me semble pas t'avoir parlé
Je parlais à Seb, pas à toi... Et puis si tu étais là depuis 631 pages, tu serai un peu lassé de répondre toujours les mêmes trucs      
 
edit : et puis si t'aime pas HFr, va sur des sites de truthers, yaura pleins de gens pour t'écouter

Pas de chances, j'ai tout lu de ce fil et je n'ai pas vu la moindre réponse aux interrogations que j'ai soulevées. Pas si exhaustif que cela mon cher plam

Non mais c'est quoi ce ton Pour qui tu te prend    
 
 
C'est dingue, avant les SQFP avait un minimum de respect, là ça en devient agaçant
Va pouiquer ailleurs

Tu pollues le fil avec des réflexions pas drôles hors sujet. Je suppose que c'est cela que tu entends par pouiquer...

C'est précisément en réaction à votre ignorance teintée d'arrogance que j'ai décidé d'intervenir dans le débat pour soumettre à vottre attention  un certain nombre de points controversés qui ne trouve étonnamment aucun écho dans votre premier post. C'est de manière pour la moins orientée par exemple que les debunkers actifs sur ce site présentent la théorie officielle du Nist comme une évidence qu'aucun scientifique ne remet en cause. S'il y avait une quelconque recherche objective, le premier post devrait évidemment être complété avec les arguments scientifiques qui réfutent cette thèse à laquelle vous vous accrochez avec une manière de fétichisme...

C'est précisément en réaction à votre ignorance teintée d'arrogance que j'ai décidé d'intervenir dans le débat pour soumettre à vottre attention  un certain nombre de points controversés qui ne trouve étonnamment aucun écho dans votre premier post. C'est de manière pour la moins orientée par exemple que les debunkers actifs sur ce site présentent la théorie officielle du Nist comme une évidence qu'aucun scientifique ne remet en cause. S'il y avait une quelconque recherche objective, le premier post devrait évidemment être complété avec les arguments scientifiques qui réfutent cette thèse à laquelle vous vous accrochez avec une manière de fétichisme...

Tu peux continuer autant que tu veux à faire comme si cette théorie était établie et non disputée.  
Cela s'appelle le déni en psychologie...
 
Article Grsicam :
 
 
Manuel Garcia, who has his Ph.D. in Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering from Princeton and works as a physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has written a recent series of articles for CounterPunch, which is described by the editors as a “widely applauded primer on the laws of physics and the myths of conspiracists (sic)” concerning the collapses of World Trade Center towers 1, 2, and 7.
 
Below, I will take issue with Dr. Garcia’s primer. He doesn’t get MY applause.
 
I too hold a Ph.D. (in Physics) from an Ivy League university (Brown) and have worked as a physicist at a national laboratory (33 years at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC).
 
Physicists with international reputations hate to be caught making mistakes. Even Albert Einstein was chagrined by what he regarded as his “biggest blunder,” that is, adding a “cosmological constant” to his general theory of relativity in order to stabilize the universe against gravitational collapse. Einstein threw in the towel after the astronomers determined that the more distant galaxies have greater “red shifts,” thus proving that the
universe is actually expanding. Only after his death was it found out from studies of the cosmic microwave background radiation that, “yes, Virginia,” there really is a cosmological constant!
 
But there was only one Einstein. The rest of us have little hope that history will look kindly on our blunders.
Mercifully, we normally publish in refereed journals, where some of our inevitable mistakes are caught by anonymous peer reviewers prior to publication. Nevertheless, referees tend to be too busy to catch every error, so mistakes can still leak into print. I have made a horrendous number of mistakes in the process of publishing the 108 papers that I wrote fully myself. I know this because I’ve caught virtually all of them myself by
double-, triple-, and quadruple-checking my data, logic, and mathematics before allowing my manuscripts to go to press. My published works are highly respected by my peers according to my score (h=39) on the recently devised Hirsch index [J.E. Hirsch, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 0507655102 (2005)]. This means that 39 of the 185 total papers of which I am the principal author or a coauthor have each been cited at least 39 times in other
refereed publications.
 
By contrast, informal publications on the internet are not subject to such checks and balances, and no one’s reputation is likely to be badly tarnished if mistakes are made here. So even scientists may be tempted to “shoot from the hip” in a blog. This situation reminds me of my undergraduate and grad-school days when everyone made mistakes – harmlessly.
 
There were times when a physics professor would forget important steps in deriving a theorem on the blackboard and get away with not admitting it. Thanks to one of my physics instructors with a sense of humor, I learned a term for a credentialed person’s bamboozling of the uninitiated. It’s called “proof by intimidation.”
 
There is another amusing term that is almost universally used by physicists. Picture a graduate student eager to explain to his mentor a hypothesis he has just hatched to explain some odd data. Almost immediately he experiences difficulty finding the “right” words (generally because his hypothesis is half baked or flat wrong) and so begins to substitute gesticulations. Thus, physicists have come to refer to simplistic use of words in lame attempts to explain complex physical phenomena as “hand waving.”
 
Part One of Dr. Garcia’s three-part series in CounterPunch is entitled “We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist – The Physics of 9/11” (http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html). He begins with a short history of the mass psychoses of the past half century and shows by example how many of these have resulted from people’s ignorance of science. He further asserts that such ignorance often causes people to construct myths that help to soothe their fears of forces beyond their control – and that many such myths take the form of “conspiracy theories.”
Deeper into his introductory paragraphs, Dr. Garcia introduces the reader to the concept of “Occam's Razor” in these words: “Experience has shown that if the evidence allows for several explanations to a given problem then the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is most probably correct.” However, Dr. Garcia grossly overrates Occam’s Razor in the matter of what experience actually shows. In my 40 years of doing experimental physics I found that the phenomena I studied in the greatest depth usually turned out to be vastly more complex than my initial hypotheses anticipated. Indeed, the one time I can remember actually using Occam’s Razor to justify a hypothesis in a published paper, I lived to see it disproved 19 years later by a research group in Palermo, Italy.
 
Score: Physics 1, William of Occam 0.
 
What I love about doing physics of the material world is that the correct explanation of each and every physical phenomenon eventually emerges, even if it takes many years. Physicists worldwide read each other’s work, gather more and more evidence, and commonly falsify one another’s earlier hypotheses in the process of getting to the core truth.
 
But leaving behind the physical world for the world human conniving, all bets are off.
 
Human conspirators may well choose to deliberately violate Occam’s Razor simply to throw off forensic investigators sophisticated enough to be aware of the concept. In fact, I will give an example of this in the talk “Forensic Statistical Mechanics Applied to Public Documents Prove Poll-Worker Fraud” that I am scheduled to present in the symposium “Are We a Democracy? Vote Counting in the United States,” at the 2007 Annual
Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
 
Dr. Garcia next describes the multi-volume Final Report by the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST), issued in September 2005, as the "official word" on the events of 9/11, particularly regarding the collapse the World Trade Center (WTC) towers.
 
He tells us that NIST “did not proceed to a detailed simulation of the collapses to the ground” and that “NIST justified this on the grounds that there was sufficient energy in the descending blocks to crush the lower structures, once failures had occurred.”
 
In my opinion, this so-called “justification” on the part of NIST is “hand waving” in its purest form – and in the most unforgivable of circumstances! Americans have a right to know exactly what happened on 9/11, and this right justifies a major effort to simulate every second of the collapses by means of super computers and perhaps mechanical scale models. For $20 million taxpayer dollars, NIST should already have delivered such. That
they did not is inexcusable.
 
But I diverge.
 
Let’s return to Dr. Garcia’s physics tutorial. In the section called “Problem 1 Force Balance” he considers the force due to the “upper block” of a WTC tower (defined as the part of the building above where the airplane struck) pushing downward on the rest of the building. He uses Newton’s 2nd Law of motion (F = ma, where “F” is force, “m” is mass, and “a” is acceleration) to set up equations for the dynamic force that would be imparted
to the lower part of the building in the event that all vertical support members between two of the floors (nominally at the airplane-strike level) should instantaneously lose all of their strength. He concludes this section with a tautology: “Clearly, the lower structure will crumble when F is greater than the maximum force it can support...”
 
Clearly. But what IS the maximum force the lower structure can support? Dr. Garcia never tells us, and I suspect he doesn’t know. This is a classic prelude to a "proof by intimidation."
 
Then we arrive at “Problem 1, Numerical Example of Progressive Collapse,” where Dr. Garcia sets up equations for free-fall times and speeds as functions of drop distance without air resistance. Specifically, he calculates the free-fall speed of the “upper block” dropping 3 meters (the approximate height between floors in a WTC tower) assuming no air resistance – AND assuming absolutely zero resistance by the 47 massive central steel columns or the approximately 200 intact exterior support members. Possible fire weakening notwithstanding, this final assumption is totally unjustified, and I shall have more to say about it below.
 
But first let’s see where his calculation leads.
 
He calculates the total (static plus dynamic) force exerted by the “upper block” upon striking the lower structure after this 3-meter free-fall as being 6.1 times the weight of the upper block. The number “6.1,” as given, has two significant figures (the 6 and the 1), normally implying that any error in this calculation should be no larger in magnitude than plus-or-minus 0.9. So is the number 6.1 really so accurate? Well, it’s accurate if you accept Dr. Garcia’s OTHER assumptions to be accurate.
 
What other assumptions?
 
Well, he supposes a value for the change in speed (dv) that the “upper block” experiences when it hits the floor below it – and also a value for the time interval (dt) during which this speed is lost. A couple paragraphs before his actual calculation, Dr. Garcia asserts without proof or argument that “Impact is a very brief process whose duration is dt =1/100 [second].”
 
Whoa, Nellie! It turns out that the value of dt = 1/100 second is critical to his thesis, but he doesn’t tell us where it came from! So how accurate is this number anyway?
 
Well, to have such a small value of dt would require that the bottom of the falling “upper block” meet the floor below without the slightest tilt. For example, accepting Dr. Garcia’s free-fall speed calculation of 7.7 meters/second, tilting of a 63.4-meters-square WTC floor by mere 1 degree would increase dt from his guesstimate of dt = 0.01 second all the way to dt = 0.14 second, giving the instantaneous total force of the falling “upper block”
on the lower structure of just 1.3 times the static weight of the “upper block” instead of the 6.1 times as estimated in his “example.”
So did the “upper blocks” of WTC1&2 fall without tilting?
 
Well, according to NIST’s final report (Section 6.14.4, p. 146): “Failure of the south wall in WTC 1 and east wall in WTC2 caused the portion of the building above to tilt in the direction of the failed wall.” And in films, the "upper block" of WTC2 is seen to tilt as much as 23 degrees!
 
Therefore, if we accept NIST’s last word on the subject, Dr. Garcia’s guesstimated dt parameter is egregiously wrong, and his calculations prove nothing – not even “by intimidation.” And yet the real elephant in the room still remains Dr. Garcia’s tacit assumption that the intact core columns (most of the original 47) and the about 200 visibly intact perimeter columns between the two adjacent floors in question SIMULTANEOUSLY lost 100% of their strength at the precise moment of collapse initiation.
 
Why simultaneously?
 
Well, Dr. Garcia’s dynamic-force calculation assumes the “upper block” to have been in unimpeded free-fall for the full 3 meter drop, whereas if some steel columns simply refused to bend or break at the same time, the “upper block” would have descended those 3 meters without picking up nearly as much speed.
 
In fact, Dr. Garcia’s concealed assumption that all support columns lost ALL of their strength – from floor to ceiling – at a single instant in time (much shorter than the 0.78-second 3-meter free-fall time) is unsupported by any evidence, or even by any claim made by NIST.
 
Moreover, even neglecting the different strengths of steel at different temperatures, it is astronomically improbable that approximately 250 steel columns would fail SIMULTANEOUSLY in a fire. In more popular language, this hidden assumption underlying Dr. Garcia's calculation is "statistically impossible."
 
But there is ONE way that all of the columns could have lost strength simultaneously. It's called CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True”:
http://911review.com/articles/grif [...] leevidence
 
This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2, and 7 were brought down by explosives.  
 
Thus, with his hidden assumptions exposed, Dr. Garcia's analysis does NOT support the official hypothesis that fires initiated the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11/01 and does NOT contradict Dr. Griffin's compilation of evidence that they were brought down by controlled demolition.
I have a feeling that most physicists never completely outgrow their propensity for "hand waving" and that in moments of hubris some may even resort to "proofs by intimidation."
 
But in the end what keeps us honest is our need to publish in peer-reviewed journals. Therefore, I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.
 
The issue of knowing who was REALLY behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the so-far-UNPROVED assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs has led directly to the Patriot Act, the Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215).
 
Surely there can be no higher motivation than this for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to enter the search for 9/11 Truth!:

hahahaha ! Pardon, je repasse, mais là vous tenez un pouiqueur de compet' ! Parcce que des "arguments scientifiques", sur les 100 pages ou je répondais, j'en ai pas vu un. Par contre, des "doutes" , ça, tous les complotistes en ont. Je me souviens encore du débat sur la durée de chute des tours, c'était absolument énorme quand j'avais du temps à perdre !
 
PS : désolé pour la nostalgie
 
Edit : et grillé en plus

une demi-seconde à peine avant mais pas "just seconds after". En plus, désolé mais les dégâts très lourds qui ont été constatés par divers témoignages que vous connaissez ne proviennent selon toute vraisemblance pas du crash qui s'est produit 300 mètres plus haut. Ce n'est pas en zappant les témoins que l'on renforce la théorie officielle en tous les cas...

 
 
"l'oscillation de la tour qu'il ressent accompagne le bang lointain du crash de l'avion et non la première explosion qu'il entends quelques secondes avant."
 
Donc :  
 
t0 : impact à 300 m de hauteur
t0 + 0,1s : l'onde sonore transmise sans amortissement par les colonnes d'aciers atteint le sous sol (1e bang, le plus violent)
t0+ 0,5 s : l'onde mécanique se fait ressentir en sous sol
t0+ 1,0 s : l'onde sonore transmise et amortie par l'air atteint le sous sol (2e bang)
 
 
Il me semble que ça colle.
 
 
Concernant les dégât, ça doit être raisonnablement sévère. L'acier est très élastique => l'énergie mécanique communiquée par l'impact aux +/- 20 colonnes touchées est transmise sans perte aux sous sol.
 
+ écoulement de kérosène enflammés dans les 10 sec qui suivent, par les cages d'ascenseur "express".
 
a+

Tu sais très bien que cet argumenté a été réfuté depuis longtemps.
Pas le courage de retrouver qui ni quand mais au vu de certains témoignages ayant décrit les cages d'ascenseurs dévastées au rez et de l'organisation des cages d'ascenseurs, il est impossible que le feu ait pu se propager par les cages d'ascenseurs. On ne va pas refaire dix fois le même débat. Si il faut, je vous retrouve tout mais je pense que cela ne sera pas la peine...

c'est pas scientfique sans doute... les articles que j'ai cité et même retranscrit ce midi...
Evidemment si tu captes pas l'english...

http://www.journalof911studies.com [...] ndRoss.pdf
 
 
Extraits (Désolé pour spam, c'est en anglais):
 
(...)
 
The following is an excerpt about an eyewitness at WTC1 by the name of William Rodriguez (he
worked at the WTC complex for 20 years, was acknowledged a hero for the many lives he saved that
day, and he was the last person out of the building before it came down):
Link: http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna17.htm
-------
Arriving at 8:30 on the morning of 9-11 he went to the maintenance office located on the first
sublevel, one of six sub-basements beneath ground level. There were a total of fourteen people in the
office at that same time. As he was discussing the day’s tasks with others, there was a very loud
massive explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were an
additional twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.
Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II) 4 of 11
Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross (Member, Scholars for 9/11 Truth) © 2006
At first he thought it was a generator that had exploded. But the cement walls in the office cracked
from the explosion. "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated,
the walls started cracking and everything started shaking." said Rodriguez, who was crowded
together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia, his supervisor for
the American Building Maintenance Company.
Just seconds later there was another explosion way above which made the building oscillate
momentarily. This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the Tower at about the 90th floor. Upon
hearing about the plane, he immediately thought of the people up in the restaurant. Then there were
other explosions just above B1 and individuals started heading for the loading dock to escape the
explosion’s resulting rampant fire. When asked later about those first explosions he said: "I would
know if an explosion was from the bottom or the top of the building." He heard explosions both
before and after the plane hit the Tower.
-------
The number of witnesses who presented evidence of explosion and explosion damage, and
particularly the injuries that some witnesses received, again leaves no room for doubt that there were
explosions in the basement of WTC1. The following video link is powerful testimony by William
Rodriguez and is evidence that corroborates the facts of this paper; also, these facts corroborate the
37 eyewitnesses in the WTC1 basement: Link: http://www.jonhs.net/911/william_rodriguez.htm
 
BASEMENT AND LOBBY DAMAGE
 
It is noted that the damage caused by these explosions had previously been attributed to aircraft
impact. However, refutation of this is provided by both the testimonies of William Rodriguez in the
above link, and by NYFD Lieutenant William Walsh in the below link. This concerns specifically
the middle, local elevators that were blown off their hinges from below, as evidenced by the doors
resting outward at 45 degree angles that met in the middle near the bottom. These local elevators
serviced only Floors 34 down to the lowest level of the building, Level B6 in the basement. They
could not have been the result of aircraft impact:
Link: Testimony, Lt. William Walsh NYFD, Jan 11, 2002.pdf
WTC Building Layout Link: World Trade Center Building Layout, Floors and Elevators
----------------------------
Lt. Walsh- Answer: What else I observed in the lobby was that – there’s basically two areas of
elevators. There’s elevators off to the left-hand side which are really the express elevators. That
would be the elevators that’s facing north. Then on the right-hand side there’s also elevators that are
express elevators, and that would be facing south. In the center of these two elevator shafts would
be elevators that go to the lower floors. They were blown off the hinges. That’s where the service
elevator was also.
Chief Congiusta- Question: Were these elevators that went to the upper floors? They weren’t side
lobby elevators?
Answer: No, no, I’d say that they went through floors 30 and below.
Question: And they were blown off?
Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II) 5 of 11
Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross (Member, Scholars for 9/11 Truth) © 2006
Answer: They were blown off the hinges, and you could see the shafts. The elevators on the
extreme north side and the other express elevator on the extreme south side, they looked intact to me
from what I could see, the doors anyway…….
…….So I headed for the B stairway. I did not want to deal with elevators. So Ladder 1—
Question: Were there any elevators working or no? Probably no, I assume.
Answer: I couldn’t tell about the express elevators. The elevators that I mentioned before that were
on the extreme north end and the extreme south end, I don’t know about those elevators. But I
headed for where the service elevator was, which was in the center where the lower floor elevators
were, the ones where the doors were blown off them.
----------------------------
Lieutenant Walsh makes an extremely relevant point when he shows that the local elevator shafts
acted as a conduit for the explosive effects and thereby limits the source of the explosion to the area
covered by those shafts. His evidence shows that the elevator shafts affected by the explosions
served only the lower floors and not those at the impact levels, thereby ruling out jet fuel from the
aircraft as being involved in the explosions.
Additional corroboration of the elevators being blown out is provided by Lt. Brian Becker &
Firefighter Robert Byrne, NYFD: Link: Lt. Brian Becker, NYFD, Elevators Were Blown Out
Link: Firefighter Robert Byrne, NYFD: Core Elevators (Blown Apart)
Since only one elevator shaft was continuous from the aircraft impact level to the basement level, we
can further rule out the aircraft impact as being the cause of the basement explosions by using
additional testimony of William Rodriguez. In direct response to a question which postulated that
the explosion was caused by aircraft fuel traveling down the elevator shafts, he stated, "Very strange
indeed, since there were only one elevator shaft (the 50A car) that went all the way to B6, the
operator was inside, Mr. Griffith and he survived with a broken ankles. He should have died burnt
since on this theory the ball of fire went down. He is alive and well and I will interview him in the
future to clear the disinformation."
Link: William Rodriguez | 08.18.06 - 12:20 am
When talking about the lobby damage and his experiences, Rodriguez added, "I said many times that
when I got back to the basement after escorting a person totally burnt and 14 people from my office
out of the building, there were sprinklers going off on the basement and not on the upper floors. Also
when I got to the lobby, the passenger elevators in the field of view, their doors were popped open
sideways like a pyramid, from the bottom up."
The evidence of William Walsh and William Rodriguez shows that there were explosions that
affected the basement and lobby levels, and these were not caused by the jet fuel.

T'es gentil mon anglais va très bien  

Tu sais très bien que cet argumenté a été réfuté depuis longtemps.
Pas le courage de retrouver qui ni quand mais au vu de certains témoignages ayant décrit les cages d'ascenseurs dévastées au rez et de l'organisation des cages d'ascenseurs, il est impossible que le feu ait pu se propager par les cages d'ascenseurs. On ne va pas refaire dix fois le même débat. Si il faut, je vous retrouve tout mais je pense que cela ne sera pas la peine...

Il va falloir que tu trouve le courage de retrouver l'argument. La cage du monte charge allant très haut dans les tours me semble t'il. En plus, celà n'exclue pas les autres conduits pouvant longer ces cages et aller plus loin verticallement (aération, cage techniques ...)

T'es gentil mon anglais va très bien  

Tu es Sidorku ou bien Plam?
Comme j'ai des doutes sur votre capacité d'assimilation de cette langue ou au moins de votre courage de le lire, je précise à toutes fins utiles que deux témoignages s'accordent à dire qu'il est exclu que le feu ait pu traverser l'immeuble des étages ayant subi l'impact jusqu'aux sous-sols.  
 
Question : qu'est-ce qui a provoqué les affreuses brûlures des gens aux sous-sols?

Tu es Sidorku ou bien Plam?
Comme j'ai des doutes sur votre capacité d'assimilation de cette langue ou au moins de votre courage de le lire, je précise à toutes fins utiles que deux témoignages s'accordent à dire qu'il est exclu que le feu ait pu traverser l'immeuble des étages ayant subi l'impact jusqu'aux sous-sols.

Question : qu'est-ce qui a provoqué les affreuses brûlures des gens aux sous-sols?

ça me tue qu'il soit aussi agressif
 
 
 
     
 
Master of the Pouic ?
 
Là j'avoue que je commence à m'agacer de son comportement

Tu ne sais pas lire un pseudo alors ?    
 
Autre chose, c'est un peu facile d'arriver sur le topic en donnant toutes sortes de liens, de vidéos, de textes à lire, c'est une technique connue chez les complotistes, mais ca prend du temps pour voir, lire et surtout vérifier tout cela. Faudra donc attendre un peu pour les réponses. Surtout que la plupart des intervenants ici n'ont pas forcément une journée complète à consacrer à ces documents ou à les poster.    
 
Je veux bien tenter une réponse mais je t'avais posé une question que tu as ignoré et à laquelle il faudra répondre avant:
 Quelle est ta thèse sur les évènements du 11 septembre dans leur globalité?

Spam,

tu me pouiques, je te picque...
Saine rétorsion, non?

Je ne sais qu'une seule chose : la théorie officielle est aberrante.
Après...

Après quoi ? N'ai pas peur on a déja vu de tout, explique donc...

Après, aucune idée et pas à moi de le dire

Je ne sais qu'une seule chose : la théorie officielle est aberrante.
Après...

"Aberrant" qu'il y ait des bruits d'explosion dans un incendie.
Mais qu'une grosse quantité de thermate soit tranquillemnt placé, ça c'est limpide.  

Tu sais très bien que cet argumenté a été réfuté depuis longtemps.
Pas le courage de retrouver qui ni quand mais au vu de certains témoignages ayant décrit les cages d'ascenseurs dévastées au rez et de l'organisation des cages d'ascenseurs, il est impossible que le feu ait pu se propager par les cages d'ascenseurs. On ne va pas refaire dix fois le même débat. Si il faut, je vous retrouve tout mais je pense que cela ne sera pas la peine...

Je ne soutiens pas la thèse du thermate. Je dis qu'elle existe et qu'elle brise votre idée absurde qau'il existe un consensus scientfique autour de ces questions. Quant à ta petite image de GN, tu te la gardes

Je ne sais qu'une seule chose : la théorie officielle est aberrante.
Après...

meuh non, ça n'a jamais été réfuté. Il y avait des ascenseurs express dans l'immeuble.
 
De toute façon, il y a bien eu un liquide incendiaire en sous sol qq secondes après les impacts, et en pas assez grande quantité pour avoir causé un incendie massif. On raisonne, et on conclut.    
 
a+

C'est ridicule. Si tu dis qu'elle existe, c'est que tu la soutiens.    
 
E il n'existe pas de consensus scientifique autour de ces questions, il y a quelques complotistes, qui sont profs de math remplaçants, qui soutiennent Jones. qui lui-même n'a pas réussi à prouver la présence de thermite, mais qui veut y croire. comme il croit que Jesus christ est allé en Amérique.

Comment ennoncerais tu la ci-devant "thèse officielle". On peut mettre ce que l'on veut dedans, donc cherchons un peu plus de précision.
 
Peux-tu faire un résumé de tous les points factuels qui te semblent aberrants ?
 
a+

tu ne feras croire à personne que tu ne fais que rappeler son existence.  

Apprends à lire alors... mon premier post par exemple...
Je n'ai pas les aptitudes scientfiques à trancher... Un débat existe et il doit être tranché car de la réponse à ce débat dépend la valdité de la théorie officielle...

tu pourrais changer de ton quand tu parles? depuis le début tu es agressif dans tes reponses, il ne faut pas s'etonner que personne ne t'ai répondu normallment (sans meme regarder le contenu de tes post).
 
 
 
malgré tout, tu reconnaitra que si ta thèse etait si clair et evidente, tout le monde serait d'accord avec.
et le plus marrant c'ets que tu ne t'engage a rien, t'es qu'on cherche un peu tes convictions personnelles, d'un coup tu crois plus rien  

tu ne feras croire à personne que tu ne fais que rappeler son existence.  

Je ne crois rien, c'est dans ma nature. En revanche je SAIS que la théorie officielle est du nawak!