Canadian Government to Consider 9/11 Petition, 51% of Canadians Don't Believe Story

[metco]

I guess Canadians still have an education system and know when something is impossible.

24 Canadians were killed on 9/11 and 158 soldiers subsequently in Afghanistan.

The Canadian government must now respond to the petition within 45 days, or by January 17, 2015. At that time the government must grant or deny the request.

Global News "Petition asks Canadian government to review 9/11 evidence":

A new petition has been submitted by three citizen groups calling for a Parliamentary review of forensic evidence regarding the events of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States.

In a poll:

51% of respondents are sure or suspect that Building 7’s collapse was caused by a controlled demolition, compared to just 18% who are sure or suspect fires caused it, and 31% who don’t know;

Canadian Parliament member introduces 9/11 petition



Press conference at Parliament, Canada Rethink 9/11


petition
http://rethink911.org/petition/#pagecontent

[brighamw]

Neat

[NumeroOnce]

^Lol at people that have nothing to say but post a humorous response instead. Remember that laughter is often a respose to fear, which could arise from contradictory information.

I'll jump ahead and save propagandists from an unessecary post.

"LOL, CTard, who cares what Canada thinks anyways? Tinfoil! Anti-semite! Osama bin Laden planned the whole thing!"

I happen to find it interesting that a country that is mostly non-biased on this event would have such a high number of people questioning it. I guess we can iterpret from that is that they have a lower number of people with their heads up their asses.

[metco]

^Lol at people that have nothing to say but post a humorous response instead. Remember that laughter is often a respose to fear, which could arise from contradictory information.

I'll jump ahead and save propagandists from an unessecary post.

"LOL, CTard, who cares what Canada thinks anyways? Tinfoil! Anti-semite! Osama bin Laden planned the whole thing!"

I happen to find it interesting that a country that is mostly non-biased on this event would have such a high number of people questioning it. I guess we can iterpret from that is that they have a lower number of people with their heads up their asses.

I still say it boils down to science and math. In Canada you need some 11th grade math to graduate. In US you can start being stupid by 10th grade and never take anymore science or math. Anyone with a little algebra can sit down and figure out how much heat a liter of jet fuel gives off, and how much it takes to make steel soft, and see that it's not even close. That starts you on your way to seeing what the truthers have to say, and eventually you see the official story is impossible.

[TheStender]

So what happens if they review all the evidence and agree with the official story?

[NumeroOnce]

So what happens if they review all the evidence and agree with the official story?

For me, it would depend on whether or not the Canadian investigation finds that Flight 93 was shot down. It's the most obvious, glaring discrepancy in the whole narrative. If they don't at least find that Flight 93 was shot down, then I'd consider it to be them saving face to not upset their extremely powerful ally below them.

[Darkhare]

I still say it boils down to science and math. In Canada you need some 11th grade math to graduate. In US you can start being stupid by 10th grade and never take anymore science or math. Anyone with a little algebra can sit down and figure out how much heat a liter of jet fuel gives off, and how much it takes to make steel soft, and see that it's not even close. That starts you on your way to seeing what the truthers have to say, and eventually you see the official story is impossible.

the steel doesn't need to be soft, it just needs to be weakened enough to have the weight of 40 stories above it bend it and cause failure..

If people don't think the towers came down to planes hitting them... i don't know what to say, at first it looked shady but there are lots of youtube videos that do a reasonable job of explaining that it's possible.

I'd question who was actually flying the planes or behind those flying the planes. Tower 7 I didn't believe collapsed on it's own for the longest time, but if you realize the amount of force created by 2 MASSIVE towers slamming into the earth..... ehhh it's possible, basically creates a local earthquake. buildings blocks away had windows shattered from the shockwave.

[magog704]

I still say it boils down to science and math. In Canada you need some 11th grade math to graduate. In US you can start being stupid by 10th grade and never take anymore science or math. Anyone with a little algebra can sit down and figure out how much heat a liter of jet fuel gives off, and how much it takes to make steel soft, and see that it's not even close. That starts you on your way to seeing what the truthers have to say, and eventually you see the official story is impossible.

i'm a structural engineer, i'd be happy to answer any of your fuktarded questions.

[ymer]

I hope the petition is accepted and the investigation goes through with transparency.

[NumeroOnce]

i'm a structural engineer, i'd be happy to answer any of your fuktarded questions.

Are you the same engineer I argued with before that said flashover could've caused the visible explosions in the buildings in youtube footage, and I pointed out that the buildings had huge holes in them that would make it impossible? Serious question, it may have been a firefighter that I was debating with.

My first question is do you think Flight 93 was shot down or crashed due to the passengers being heroic?

My other question is why did the NIST/FEMA calculations for how the buildings fell only use 2/3 of the steel that was actually in the buildings?

http://911review.org/Wget/www.nerdci...demolition.htm


edit: What makes you more qualified than the architects and engineers for 9/11 truth?
http://911research.com/wtc/analysis/...l/trusses.html

[Spartan5364]

canadians are ****ing stupid and thats coming from a canadian
disgusting what happened to that country

[magog704]

Are you the same engineer I argued with before that said flashover could've caused the visible explosions in the buildings in youtube footage, and I pointed out that the buildings had huge holes in them that would make it impossible? Serious question, it may have been a firefighter that I was debating with.

My first question is do you think Flight 93 was shot down or crashed due to the passengers being heroic?

My other question is why did the NIST/FEMA calculations for how the buildings fell only use 2/3 of the steel that was actually in the buildings?

http://911review.org/Wget/www.nerdci...demolition.htm


edit: What makes you more qualified than the architects and engineers for 9/11 truth?
http://911research.com/wtc/analysis/...l/trusses.html

dude don't compare me an architect and for fuksake please not a landscaping architect. i have done plenty of dumb shiit in my life, but i don't deserve to be lumped in with their likes.

why did someone's calculations use less steel than was actually there, that's your question? do you just ask unanswerable questions? write the motherfukers who signed the calc and ask them.


my question to you is, what makes a landscape architect more qualified than the dozens and dozens of actual professional structural engineers who are able to view a film and satisfy their forensic suspicions by pure inspection? if there was some funny business goin on, my whole industry should be scratching their heads, but they aren't. now why might that be?

where is the TEAM of structural engineers who designed building seven picketing in the streets.

you are a crazy person period. it's clear as day to me.

lets start with this from the website you've posted

Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.

do you know how unclear this is? no mention of where a plane might hit, at what speed, with what payload, during what wind conditions, at what pitch roll and yaw? and lets be clear, the towers DID withstand the collision!

CONCLUSION.
Impacts of the magnitude of those that occurred on September 11 were considered by the designers of the twin towers and the towers were designed to survive them.
The possibility of a jet-fuel fires the size of those that occurred on September 11 were considered by the designers of the twin towers and the towers were designed to survive them.

what about both at the same time? did the design team create a model of the building, load the model, remove some percentage of the supporting columns that they are GUESSING might be destroyed from a plane collision, THEN analyze how much time it would take for the columns to fail due to fire damage?

[NumeroOnce]

Are you the same engineer I argued with before that said flashover could've caused the visible explosions in the buildings in youtube footage, and I pointed out that the buildings had huge holes in them that would make it impossible? Serious question, it may have been a firefighter that I was debating with.

My first question is do you think Flight 93 was shot down or crashed due to the passengers being heroic?

My other question is why did the NIST/FEMA calculations for how the buildings fell only use 2/3 of the steel that was actually in the buildings?

http://911review.org/Wget/www.nerdci...demolition.htm


edit: What makes you more qualified than the architects and engineers for 9/11 truth?
http://911research.com/wtc/analysis/...l/trusses.html

dude don't compare me an architect and for fuksake please not a landscaping architect. i have done plenty of dumb shiit in my life, but i don't deserve to be lumped in with their likes.

why did someone's calculations use less steel than was actually there, that's your question? do you just ask unanswerable questions? write the motherfukers who signed the calc and ask them.


my question to you is, what makes a landscape architect more qualified than the dozens and dozens of actual professional structural engineers who are able to view a film and satisfy their forensic suspicions by pure inspection? if there was some funny business goin on, my whole industry should be scratching their heads, but they aren't. now why might that be?

where is the TEAM of structural engineers who designed building seven picketing in the streets.

you are a crazy person period. it's clear as day to me.

Ahhh... the questions got too tough. I'd rather be crazy than a pussy, just sayin'

I thought they were easier questions, I didn't even make you do any engineering calculations or anything. I asked a simple yes/no question for Flight 93... you couldn't even answer that?

I know the answer to my question about the missing steel... to make the buildings falling seem more plausible, FEMA/NIST made the buildings seem less sturdy than they actually were.

Compare you to a landscape architect... lolwut? Where/when did I do that?

And what makes you more authoritative than, for example, this engineer, who disagrees with you?

Ed Munyak

P.E., 25-Year Fire Protection and Mechanical Engineer

"Even one global collapse would have been extraordinary, but to have 3 occur in one day was just beyond comprehension."

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/resources.html

[magog704]

And what makes you more authoritative than, for example, this engineer, who disagrees with you?


http://www.ae911truth.org/en/resources.html

nothing on paper, so maybe me and him are a wash. so what YOU should do is stack up all the tin foil hat ME's and SE's and then stack up all the engineers who think planes done 9/11 and compare those two numbers and go with whoever has more points.

there are conspiracy theorist medical doctors and politicians, all walks of life. engineers can't be perfect human beings, but they are closer than architects.

it's like i always say, you can have all the conspiracies you want, literally all im saying is most likely that planes done the demolition.

[NumeroOnce]

nothing on paper, so maybe me and him are a wash. so what YOU should do is stack up all the tin foil hat ME's and SE's and then stack up all the engineers who think planes done 9/11 and compare those two numbers and go with whoever has more points.

there are conspiracy theorist medical doctors and politicians, all walks of life. engineers can't be perfect human beings, but they are closer than architects.

But I thought you were supposed to answer the questions?

Lol at calling people with 25 years+ as an engineer tinfoilers.

What about the other simple questions you avoided? If you, or anybody, can't at least admit Flight 93 was shot down, I can't take them seriously.

[ymer]

nothing on paper, so maybe me and him are a wash. so what YOU should do is stack up all the tin foil hat ME's and SE's and then stack up all the engineers who think planes done 9/11 and compare those two numbers and go with whoever has more points.

there are conspiracy theorist medical doctors and politicians, all walks of life. engineers can't be perfect human beings, but they are closer than architects.

it's like i always say, you can have all the conspiracies you want, literally all im saying is most likely that planes done the demolition.

Dude you haven't answered any of the questions... it seems to me that you are only here to show off your non-existant structural engineer degrees.

Typical keyboard warrior.

[metco]

dude don't compare me an architect and for fuksake please not a landscaping architect.

Are these people landscape architects?

Lynn H. Affleck, PE
BS Civil Engineering UN of Utah,
Lic: C7676 NV
Las Vegas NV,
USA

Edgar A. Agda,
BS(CE)MEngSc (Structural
-
Foundation),
Sydney Nsw, Australia

John Ahn, P.E.
B.S. Architectural Engineering, Cal
Poly, Lic: C50615 CA
San Francisco CA, USA

Antonio Arthay, P.E.
M.S., Structural Engineering,
Illinois, Lic: 57912
West P
alm Beach FL, USA

Ronaldo Bassini, B.S.Mech Eng &
M
BS Yale College M Arch Columbia
Univ.,
Santa Rosa CA, USA

Anders Björkman, Naval architect
M.Sc.,
Beausoleil Alpes Maritime, France

AE911 signers
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7...%5B2000%5D.pdf

Right away you start your argument with a lie, you cherry pick the one landscape architect, like a bunch of landscape architects decided to get together and pull a fast one on the most sensitive event in history, and we're supposed to believe that an anonymous potty mouth on a meat-head forum is a structural engineer. You're a draftsman at most, retard. Real engineers don't have all day to hang out with their homies at the gym, and talk like they have a fifth-grade education.

[michiganiron19]

Is Ecto behind this?

[magog704]

But I thought you were supposed to answer the questions?

Lol at calling people with 25 years+ as an engineer tinfoilers.

What about the other simple questions you avoided? If you, or anybody, can't at least admit Flight 93 was shot down, I can't take them seriously.

i can answer questions about mechanics and strengths of materials, building codes, fire codes. i can't answer questions about airline flights with regard to my area of expertise, do you understand that? it's moot to this specific topic. shot down or not, it is moot. we are talking about forensic engineering specifically.

Right away you start your argument with a lie, you cherry pick the one landscape architect, like a bunch of landscape architects decided to get together and pull a fast one on the most sensitive event in history, and we're supposed to believe that an anonymous potty mouth on a meat-head forum is a structural engineer. You're a draftsman at most, retard. Real engineers don't have all day to hang out with their homies at the gym, and talk like they have a fifth-grade education.

architects should never enter into this discussion. why would you listen to a person speak about forensic structural engineering who never took a class on concrete design? as far as dissenting engineers, you will for sure find a handful of crazy engineers who think that, although the buildings were struck by planes, that could not have contributed to global failure. this tracks with the 1 or 2 % of crazy people you will find in any profession.

did you just call me a fukking potty mouth?

idk how to prove i am licensed without doxing myself. behind me hang my diploma and licenses.

[juicybacon]

What is "reviewing the evidence" going to do?

inb4 9/11 commission.

[magog704]

lol at myself attempting to debate this on friday at 5 oclock.

i concede the argument, you guys are right.

[ScubaStevo]

LMFAO at Canadian communists

[seven11]

lol at myself attempting to debate this on friday at 5 oclock.

i concede the argument, you guys are right.

Lol you're using logic that isn't fair.

Man, I like how people without any knowledge nor degrees like to point out how you are wrong on subjects they have no knowledge in.

[GreatOldOne]

So what happens if they review all the evidence and agree with the official story?

Then they reviewed the wrong evidence, the US withholds crucial evidence, or they came to a bad decision. Maybe some combination.

[NumeroOnce]

i can answer questions about mechanics and strengths of materials, building codes, fire codes. i can't answer questions about airline flights with regard to my area of expertise, do you understand that? it's moot to this specific topic. shot down or not, it is moot. we are talking about forensic engineering specifically.

Flight 93 is important... It demonstrates peoples mindset of how they weigh damning evidence vs official story. Keep avoiding that simple yes/no question, idc

If I think of any structural related questions ill ask you, but my point is that there are engineers out there with more experience that disagree with you.

[nutsy54]

In before every previously debunked or irrelevant 9/11 claim is presented as if it's brand new, factual information....



PS: Buh bye, been there & done that.

[Bushmaster]

dude don't compare me an architect and for fuksake please not a landscaping architect. i have done plenty of dumb shiit in my life, but i don't deserve to be lumped in with their likes.

Come on dude.. backyard waterfalls are the GOAT. Don't be like that.

[metco]

Flight 93 is important... It demonstrates peoples mindset of how they weigh damning evidence vs official story. Keep avoiding that simple yes/no question, idc

If I think of any structural related questions ill ask you, but my point is that there are engineers out there with more experience that disagree with you.

Are there illustrations of the typical wreckage pattern when a plane goes down, breaking up on impact and not in mid-air? I'd like to see that. I believe flight 93 wreckage was found across 6 miles? And an engine found 1/2 mile from the main crash site? Sorry, titanium-steel alloy engines don't bounce. They make a hole all by themselves.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/

I see that you are saying if you catch them in the little lies you can catch them in the big lies. I still say understanding Galileo is they key, with the twin towers.

[NumeroOnce]

Lol at standard Nutsy... "Its been debunked! Now im gonna duck the argument after making my presence known!"... Without ever debunking anything

Come on dude.. backyard waterfalls are the GOAT. Don't be like that.

Maybe you can point out where anybody compared him to a landscape architect? I cant seem to find it... Probably because it was a deflection.

[Bushmaster]

Maybe you can point out where anybody compared him to a landscape architect? I cant seem to find it... Probably because it was a deflection.

You know as well as I do WTF he was alluding to. At one time, there were in fact landscape architects on the much vaunted list of "Architects" and Engineers for teh truth, and you know it.