I've noticed that in the main 9/11 thread, we have now veered into the subject of the hijackers. This is all well and good; the thing is that I find that the main subject in the main 9/11 thread is the WTC collapses. I was wondering if we could have a 9/11 thread that's solely based on the WTC collapses?

Personally, I still pine for the idea of having a conspiracy sub forum. I have no problem with requesting permission to start individual threads, but I just don't want people to feel that we're drowning out other topics here. I think that conspiracy theories can easily fill up a forum at present; there definitely seem to be enough people discussion 9/11 at any rate :-p.

Start one Scott...worst thing that could happen is it gets closed . :)

Start one Scott...worst thing that could happen is it gets closed . :)

or that might be the best thing that happens to it - depending on you point of view :D

lol...true...very true. :)

Personally, I still pine for the idea of having a conspiracy sub forum..

good idea - it would give OIM somewhere to post in other than pseudoscience - he can post bollocks and whine about it being a conspiracy all at the ame time - double bubble!!

It might be something the administration might consider...at least on a trial basis. But who would be crazy enough to mod it?...geez...you have to have the patience of Job, and a good sense of humor. :)

I'd moderate it :-). I think i'm a patient person and my humour isn't so bad :-p. Plus you know me, insults and me are like oil and water :-p.

Ofcourse, I -would- want to have a few more restrictions on what could be said. Take a look at this:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2087664&postcount=149

If they don't trust me to do a good job of that, maybe someone else would like to give it a go.

Start one Scott...worst thing that could happen is it gets closed . :)

Yeah, but you have no idea how I hate it when someone swipes the rug from under my feet :-p. I'd rather have official approval and spare myself such an indignity.

There's no shame here for getting a thread locked. You don't need permission to start one. The only reason the 9/11 thread got combined, was because there were like 8 different threads..all about 9/11. It was just clean up duty. I don't think the admins want to turn this into a conspiracy site, but they will tolerate threads that contain good, passionate, above the belt debate that contains at least a little science.

There's no shame here for getting a thread locked. You don't need permission to start one. The only reason the 9/11 thread got combined, was because there were like 8 different threads..all about 9/11. It was just clean up duty. I don't think the admins want to turn this into a conspiracy site, but they will tolerate threads that contain good, passionate, above the belt debate that contains at least a little science.

My first thought on a "Conspiracy Theory" subsection was, "Oh, no!! But then upon deeper reflection, I think it would be great - just like the pseudo subsection - another area that I wouldn't even bother having to wade through!:D

But, dang RO...I could sure use some a your knowledge sometimes. :)

As I said previously, I don't mind if there is a thread for the pentagon, WTC1+2, WTC7 and flight 93.

The conspiracy theorists have an annoying tendency to jump from one to the other. As one theory gets debunked they just move to the next one. While completing these circles the conspiracy theorist is sure there must be a conspiracy because of the large number of (debunked) claims.

But, dang RO...I could sure use some a your knowledge sometimes. :)

That's very kind of you, Mac.;) But shucks, doesn't it get a little old having me explain that thermite cannot cut horizontally? Or that many UFO images are just optical effects of the cameras?

What I'm getting at is the conspiracy buffs and the UFO/alien believers absolutely NEVER learn anything - they just keep repeating the same old tired nonsense over and over and over again. Honestly - people who refuse to think OR learn just disgust me! Once something has been clearly and logically explained, that should be the end of that particular issue. But for that group? No way!! Their minds are made up DESPITE what the facts say.

What's funny, RO..I think I have actually come up with an idea of how regular ole thermite could be used to cause a vertical core column of the WTC to fail.

If anyone wants to hear my "Macgyverism" just let me know.

I'd moderate it :-). I think i'm a patient person and my humour isn't so bad :-p. Plus you know me, insults and me are like oil and water :-p.

Ofcourse, I -would- want to have a few more restrictions on what could be said. Take a look at this:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2087664&postcount=149

If they don't trust me to do a good job of that, maybe someone else would like to give it a go.

I would recommend myself. An objective position on the issues would be critical, I would think.

Of course, to assign such a theory legitimate space on the board would be an admission in and of itself - which is why Scott suggests it - and so I might be skeptical of such a development.

What's funny, RO..I think I have actually come up with an idea of how regular ole thermite could be used to cause a vertical core column of the WTC to fail.

If anyone wants to hear my "Macgyverism" just let me know.

Does it involve gum?

No...ceramic cones.

Would it make more sense if it was gum and ceramic cones? And a hairpin?

yes..Yes...YES!! That's it!

Well, it wouldn't work without a giant "la-zer" zapping things from orbit. And holograms. And fembots.

...uh...well...I need to justify my budget so that I can cull $200K out of my usual 40% soft salary costs. So...you know.

What's funny, RO..I think I have actually come up with an idea of how regular ole thermite could be used to cause a vertical core column of the WTC to fail.

If anyone wants to hear my "Macgyverism" just let me know.

Heh-heh! Sure, I'd like to hear it. :)

I realize you could use something like firebricks (refractory blocks) with a deep groove cut into the them ans placed all the way around the beam, but the installation time needed for SO many beams would be weeks without hundreds of installers working. Hardly a practical approach.

Bu I'd still like to hear what you have in mind - maybe it's much better.

There's no shame here for getting a thread locked. You don't need permission to start one. The only reason the 9/11 thread got combined, was because there were like 8 different threads..all about 9/11. It was just clean up duty. I don't think the admins want to turn this into a conspiracy site, but they will tolerate threads that contain good, passionate, above the belt debate that contains at least a little science.

I'm not so sure about that. I think I'll wait a bit longer, just see if Stryder gives it the ok...

My first thought on a "Conspiracy Theory" subsection was, "Oh, no!! But then upon deeper reflection, I think it would be great - just like the pseudo subsection - another area that I wouldn't even bother having to wade through!:D

That's the spirit :-). Personally, I think what's truly funny though is that, despite the fact that you don't have to be here, here you are :-p.

As I said previously, I don't mind if there is a thread for the pentagon, WTC1+2, WTC7 and flight 93.

The conspiracy theorists have an annoying tendency to jump from one to the other. As one theory gets debunked they just move to the next one. While completing these circles the conspiracy theorist is sure there must be a conspiracy because of the large number of (debunked) claims.

I would argue that the case pertains more to official story believers. But I would love to have the 4 threads you mention. However, the one thing I do -not- want is to have a thread merged again, so I'll just see what Stryder says...

I would recommend myself. An objective position on the issues would be critical, I would think.

Of course, to assign such a theory legitimate space on the board would be an admission in and of itself - which is why Scott suggests it - and so I might be skeptical of such a development.

If they don't want me, I'm fine with you. As to legitimacy, I think all it'd say is that they think it's something that should be discussed; doesn't mean they take sides. It's essentially the same as now except if we had more then 2 threads to discuss things, we would have smaller threads. Sometimes I like searching for things I've said, but if the thread is more then 100 pages, well.. it makes for a very tedious search.

More focused topics, less pages, easier search.

yes..Yes...YES!! That's it!

Laugh :-p. The alternative mainstream consensus is that it was thermate, not thermite, so no need to come up with gum lined ceramic hairpins or what not :-p.