Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA

9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

11 August 2011 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

http://www.meetup.com/wearechange-sydney/events/28919301/

We Are Change Sydney and Truth News Australia are proud to host a screening of this exciting new documentary film by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Saturday, September 10, 2011, 7:00 PM

Sydney Mechanics' School of Arts
280 Pitt Street, Sydney (map)

The film features cutting-edge 9/11 evidence from more than 50 experts in their fields – high-rise architects, structural engineers, physicists, chemical engineers, firefighters, metallurgists, explosives experts, controlled demolition technicians, and more. They are each highly qualified. Several have Ph.D’s, including renowned scientist, Lynn Margulis who was awarded the National Medal of Science, and who exposes in this film the fraud of NIST and discusses how the scientific method should have been applied to the destruction of evidence and to the high temperature incendiaries in the WTC dust samples. The documentary is filled with wisdom from experts such as Les Young, one of several high-rise architects interviewed in the film, who remarks,

“ I would not have expected the whole building[s] to just give in at once. And I thought it rather odd that they fell almost perfectly – in very similar ways. It seemed odd that lightning would strike twice.”

9/11: Explosive Evidence DVD


The full-length documentary includes interviews with almost a dozen psychologists who help us to understand why 9/11 Truth is so difficult for the public to even face, much less accept – and what we can do better to reach them. We also hear from several 9/11 victim family members who support AE911Truth in our call for a new investigation.

Psychologist William Woodward, Ph.D, one of eight mental health professionals who are also AE911Truth petition signers, provides a profound insight in that section of the film:

" Reconciliation through the truth is a deep path to psychological recovery from the myths and lies around which this historic event has been cloaked in the official view."

We look forward to seeing you there!

Comments

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


Listen Live

Recent Comments

the lies are OBVIOUS!
http://www.sandyhookjustice.com/
fenton is a moron.

By yuhguy on 2015 01 26 - 10:25:22
From the entry 'Count me out of the Sandy Hook truther movement!'.

fenton lies about the obvious, and thinks he is being clever??
nothing wrong with sandy hook, nothing wrong with the pentagon, and nothing wrong with chemtrails.

you need to retitle your pathetic blog you pathetic liar.

By jklm on 2015 01 26 - 10:22:57
From the entry 'Count me out of the Sandy Hook truther movement!'.

Link to freeze point table is broken by comment formatting. Paste the whole next line to browser:

dimitrxe.pp.fi/pub/pol/chem/pages/Persistent Contrail.html

By Josh on 2015 01 23 - 06:11:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett wrote:

“You have never refuted any claims you have simply disagreed with them.”

Are you saying you have not checked the references I provided?


“Saturation of a parcel of air is 100% moisture when the temperature is at dew point”

Again you are ignoring saturation with respect to ice which is not the same as saturation with respect to water. You want to look at the frost point, not the dew point.

Supersaturation with respect to ice can be reached at RH levels of 70 percent and less. Have a look at this table - are you saying it’s wrong?


“The burning of carbon based fuels does not create water, the water is there all the time”

You are leaving the ground of school-grade chemistry. I have already provided you twice with the chemical equation for kerosene combustion in a jet engine.

For the third time:

2 * C12H26 + 37 * O2—-> 24 * CO2 + 26 * H2O

By the way, here is the benzene combustion in your car - every time the engine runs it creates water:

2 * C6H6 + 15 * O2—-> 12 * CO2 + 6 * H2O

In case you did not notice, the H2O molecules are water. Which is newly created by the combustion.
Again, not my invention, it’s basic chemistry. If you’re saying these equations are wrong, then where are your’s?


“If you cannot tell the difference in altitude between an aircraft flying at 30,000 feet and one at 15,000 feet you should really see an optometrist”

That’s not what you have claimed. You described a contrail at around 10 degrees above the horizon and said you determined the altitude to be 10000 feet - with your bare eyes. You did not mention any plane.

Here is what you wrote:

“[...] I took 4 [photographs] today at midday showing two distinct chemtrails at about 10,000 feet near our home at Enoggera near Brisbane, which were about 2,000 feet above some scattered fair weather cumulus cloud”

I had provided a reference to a scientific study that determined the maximum distance for stereo viewing at 160 meters. I won’t quote it again, it’s all on the previous page.

Bottom line is that you have not shown how you could determine the altitude of these contrails as 10000 ft with your bare eyes. Do you know of any other pilot who would believe you?

By Josh on 2015 01 23 - 05:32:31
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

God I’m sick of these dismissive hit pieces with nothing more to offer than an attempt at a boot in the ‘gonads’ at a wholly ambiguous collective. “Sandy Hook trutherism is unforgivable” is it ? Whatever else Sandy Hook was it was a media extravaganza with an agenda and people are entitled to respond to it as such without being turned into parahias.
——————————-
Kathy C | Seller Support Team Manager at Westpac

By Kathy C on 2015 01 23 - 04:50:26
From the entry 'Count me out of the Sandy Hook truther movement!'.

She is shallow, unintelligent, scheming, passive aggressive. I wouldnt be suprised if Wills wanted to get shot of her, but in a round about way was just forced into marriage with her because he had never been given the opportunity to play the scene. Here was safe. Hand picked for safe. Boring, smug, shallow kate.
——————————-
Sophie Hackett | Manager at <a >Bank of Melbourne</a>

By Sophie Hackett on 2015 01 23 - 04:44:58
From the entry 'Count me out of the Sandy Hook truther movement!'.

These are great tips! Thanks so much for putting the spotlight on "no plane" and "video fakery" theories!
---------------------
Matilda Barratt | Seller Support Team Manager at St George Bank

By Nancy Barratt on 2015 01 23 - 04:35:03
From the entry 'For those who are on the fence about "No Planes" & "Video Fakery" Theories'.

Leonard Clampett wrote about me:
As an amateur he claims to be more informed than I, as a professional
As I have said several times before - credentials are irrelevant if you don’t get your facts straight. You still have not issued any comments regarding your earlier claims after I have refuted them.
Did you change your stance on supersaturation with respect to ice?
Does it exist and is it a commonly occurring phenomenon as atmospheric science says?
Does one tonne of jet fuel generate roughly 1.3 tonnes of water when combusted?
Isn’t it basic chemistry that burning of any hydrocarbon fuel creates water?
Have you accepted that you can’t determine the altitude of a contrail just by using your stereoscopic view?
By Josh on 2014 12 30 - 08:22:05

Credentials from scientists therefore cannot be relevant if you don’t believe their facts are correct. Is that correct Joshnonymous? Who is the arbiter?
You have never refuted any claims you have simply disagreed with them. You are not right simply because you think you are.
Saturation of a parcel of air is when cloud forms. You can see this occurring in the sky above you on most days. Saturation of a parcel of air is 100% moisture when the temperature is at dew point. Supersaturation in clear air can occur when the water in exhaust emissions from an aircraft at altitude, in the right ambient conditions, condense after being turned to gas in the high temperatures in the can (combustion chamber). When this condensate is left to its own devices it takes up the temperature of the surrounding air and evaporates as the water content fuses into the surrounding drier air. This can take a few minutes but certainly not linger and become cloud as you claim. Otherwise we need just fly a few aircraft around to make cloud and dispense with droughts. That has been tried and does not work for obvious scientific reasons. If the surrounding air was saturated their would be cloud already. The difference between contrails that disappear within a kilometre or two behind an aircraft and those that remain for many minutes is caused by the variance in the humidity. You never see the contrails emitted in cloud do you? Meteorology 101. You get to understand all this in the senior examination studies but not in the hobby pilot exams.
The burning of carbon based fuels does not create water, the water is there all the time, and the aircraft does not carry 1.3 times its fuel load into the upper atmosphere. Weight and balance tables will tell you that. Load data sheets tell you that. The operations crew who load and fuel the aircraft will tell you that. The pilots know that because they do not take off overweight, otherwise their TOLD cards would be wrong every time. The extra water comes from the air masses that are compressed by the engines as they fly through the air masses.
If you cannot tell the difference in altitude between an aircraft flying at 30,000 feet and one at 15,000 feet you should really see an optometrist, or better still an ophthalmologist, the ones I see every year to have my eyes thoroughly checked in accordance with the legislation so provided.
Have a good day.

By Leonard Clampett on 2015 01 22 - 20:55:52
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

まずは|素晴らしいと言う私がしたいと私がしたいブログ!私は簡単な質問を持っていた心|私はあなたがいないをすればそうでない場合は、聞きしたいのですが、その。 自分の考えあなた自身とクリアを中央にどのように  見つけるために知っている前書き込み私がいた。 私がしたいた困難な時期|アイデアを得ることに私のクリア思考の心を出。 失われた無駄な 私は本当にない|書き込みしかし、それはでの喜びを取る楽しむちょうど最初の10〜15分のように思える単純に開始する方法を把握しよう。どれアイデアまたはヒント? おかげ!

By ugg ブーツ 店舗 大阪 on 2015 01 22 - 20:30:46
From the entry 'War monger Tony Abbott recklessy accuses the Russian President over downed passenger plane'.

Amazed: Hereward isn’t saying anything here about 100% free speech, only pointing out that the people who rule have double standards: upholding the right of one group to freedom of speech, but not to another. Thus your argument is irrelevant to the subject. Unless you’re suggesting that because 100% free speech is undesirable (according to you), it’s ok for this situation to occur?

By zek on 2015 01 22 - 01:00:55
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

Categories