LISTEN LIVE OR CALL IN » CLICK HERE!
Most Popular
Latest Posts
TNRA 22 August 2008
On tonight's show we present in in-depth analysis of the NIST WTC 7 Investigation, with engineer and registered member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, John Bursill.
Information relevant to tonight's show:
Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
AE911Truth Press Conference 8/21/08 Response to NIST Final Report on WTC 7
NIST Press Release
Report and Recommendations for Improving Building Safety Released for Comment
August 21, 2008 | Related Documents
GAITHERSBURG, Md.—The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.
“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.”
Recent Comments
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/dane-wigington-on-infowars-4-4-13/#comment-33658
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:31:03
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:28:20
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
http://www.soldierhugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Geoengineering.pdf
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:19:23
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard Clampett,
the video you linked is a really old conglomerate of all sorts of claims that have been debunked ad nauseam.
What do you think is the ultimate proof for the existence of chemtrails?
Why should we have to assume there is such a thing like chemtrails? How are they different from contrails?
By Josh on 2013 04 10 - 06:59:34
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
http://realnewsworldwide.com/2008/09/10/chemtrails-ultimate-proof/
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 09 - 16:31:36
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
If you open the link you will see the reference to chemtrail area forecasts. The other link I wish to post is refused by the “Truth news” which claims it may be SPAM and “will be moderated”, probably because it mentions chemtrails in the link. However, I will try again by separating the words. http://www.chemtrail forecast.com/main.html
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 09:02:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard Clampett,
about the link you posted - where is the relevance in the discussion about persistent contrails?
By Josh on 2013 03 13 - 08:50:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
http://www.haarpstatus.com/status.html
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 08:44:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard Clampett,
after you consistently refused to accept the fact that fuel combustion generates more water than the equivalent of fuel burnt - even when a Qantas pilot confirmed this - I am highly skeptical of your “aviation life experience”. I hope you understand that.
So there are more explanations needed before your claims can be taken seriously.
1. How did you determine that the ambient conditions at the upper troposphere were not conducive to the formation of contrails this summer?
2. How did you determine the causal connection between trails and lack of rain?
3. How did you determine the altitude of the low trail that you saw? How can you be sure it was below the cumulus? Why not above (remember: 3D viewing up to 160m max)? Any pictures maybe?
If you want to do REAL research on the Internet, I strongly suggest to repeat every search query that you issue with the word “debunked” appended. That is the way to do proper research because you see both sides and their arguments. Don’t just fall for sensational claims.
Unfortunately, the Internet is loaded with bunk.
By Josh on 2013 03 02 - 18:06:10
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Josh Anonymous,
You apparently do not do much research. Notice how, over the Eastern Australian summer, there have been many chemtrails coincident with usual weather patterns where obvious rain should have been the outcome had the chemtrails not been laid, and it was not, and this during the season when ambient conditions are not conducive to the formation of contrails. Chemtrails are entirely different to what you term “persistent contrails” as you would know if you had sufficient aviation life experience. You may try to explain how there was recently, and I have observed the same many times before, a chemtrail below a layer of fair weather Cu at 8,000 ft and how this could possibly occur without the laws of physics and thermodynamics being turned on their head. I suggest that you do an Internet search for the activities of Bill Gates and geoengineering.
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 02 - 13:51:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.