9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

yes, Gany..you should sue him...the whole "checkmate" thing is kinda your trademark

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here you go:
**********************************************
Note that the NFPA 921Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations clearly states:
“Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.”48

This is the standard procedure for fire and explosion investigations – looking for thermite residues.
Was it applied to the WTC “crime scene”? NIST was asked:
• Question: ““Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
• Answer; “NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.” 49

NIST is remiss in not testing for thermite residues as required by the NFPA 921 code. We are testing for these residues and invite other serious researchers to join us. The EDS methods are well established.
**********************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf , page 26

I think it would be good to include what followed after the above, as it shows that the famous sample gathered by MacKinlay was not the only sample of metallic spheres in the WTC dust:
**********************************************
Other studies of the WTC dust, such as the USGS survey of and the R. J. Lee study also noted the presence of metallic spheres in the WTC dust, even iron-rich spherules.50 However, the origin of these iron-rich microspheres remained a mystery in earlier studies, which did not present any interpretation that includes the hypothesis that thermite-analogs might have been used in the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers and in the concomitant production of iron-rich spheres, nor did they report the iron-aluminum-sulfur combination in the spheres which our team has observed.
**********************************************

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hm. Well, that sounds reasonable. As I said, however, there were other possibilities...

There were reports of explosions in the basement, although it didn't knock the building down- Perhaps it weakened it though. If the building had collapsed from the bottom (which would be the normal way a demolition occurs), it would have perhaps been a little too obvious. True, the WTC 7 building fell in this manner, but perhaps they felt that no one would pay much attention to that building.

How about a power down of the upper floors of the building? Check this out:
**************************************
Pre-9/11 World Trade Center Power-Down
by Victor Thorn - April 23, 2004

Did the World Trade Center towers undergo a deliberate “power-down” on the weekend prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks? According to Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc. – a high-net investment bank which was later acquired by Franklin Templeton – this is precisely what took place. Forbes, who was hired by Fiduciary in 1999 and is now stationed at a U.K. branch office, was working on the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, and said that his company was given three weeks advance notice that New York’s Port Authority would take out power in the South Tower from the 48th floor up. The reason: the Port Authority was performing a cabling upgrade to increase the WTC’s computer bandwidth.

Forbes stated that Fiduciary Trust was one of the WTC’s first occupants after it was erected, and that a “power-down” had never been initiated prior to this occasion. He also stated that his company put forth a huge investment in time and resources to take down their computer systems due to the deliberate power outage. This process, Forbes recalled, began early Saturday morning (September 8th) and continued until mid-Sunday afternoon (September 9th) – approximately 30 hours. As a result of having its electricity cut, the WTC’s security cameras were rendered inoperative, as were its I.D. systems, and elevators to the upper floors.

Forbes did stress, though, that there was power to the WTC’s lower floors, and that there were plenty of engineers going in-and-out of the WTC who had free access throughout the building due to its security system being knocked out. In an e-mail to journalist John Kaminski, author of The Day America Died (Sisyphus Press) and America’s Autopsy Report (Dandelion Books), Forbes wrote: “Without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors, and many, many ‘engineers’ coming in and out of the tower.”

Forbes didn’t think much of these occurrences at the time, and said that he worked until Monday morning (September 10th) to get all the computer systems back online. Due to his IT-related duties on Saturday & Sunday, Forbes had Tuesday, September 11th off, and thus watched the World Trade Center towers collapse from his apartment. While doing so, he recalled, “I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work.”
**************************************

The article goes on. You may want to take a look:
http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html

I agree with the 'no need for planes' bit. However, the bit about sureptitiously installing the explosives is a bit more complicated. The planes served their purpose of misdirection for many years for many (for some it clearly is still quite good at its misdirection), but many now believe that that's all they were and are now looking more closely at the possibility of explosives.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If I did it, and I was employed by the government, how the hell is anyone supposed to prove it was actually the government behind it?

 

There may be ways to do so. However, right now, my main focus has simply been to show that the official story as to why the WTC buildings collapsed is full of holes. Once this is established, we can focus more on who had the capability of putting explosives into those buildings.

 

When aluminum is melted it is silvery. If you keep heating it turns yellow though. NIST estimated temperatures 1000C. I don't think we can be confident that the test there appropriately simulates the conditions of 9/11. Did they have the correct temperatures, the materials of the plane, the office materials, was there similar slag formation?

There may certainly be something other than just aluminum flowing out of the building. Maybe there is lead or sulfur in there I don't know. However it is almost certainly not iron or steel.

If there was molten steel/iron flowing for a few minutes why is the steel around the area of the flow keeping its strength? If there were temperatures of 1500C + and material that temperature flowing out like a river why is the face of the building not affected by this molten flow? If it were 1500C it would be. However it would have had no trouble withstanding a molten light alloy that was less than 1000C. There was bowing nearby but that was not localized to the area of the molten flow.



According to http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm the color of the material would have turned black as it fell and cooled.

If we ignore these issues another question would be, where did the tonnes of aluminium go? If we are to pretend that there were temperatures of 1500C then there where was the molten aluminium?


There are simply too many problems with the claim that it was molten steel/iron.

 

No idea. It's a non issue though as we have discussed several times the steel which was compared to soft licorice and there is evidence of the floor bowing towards the end. Clearly there were high temperatures and the steel was affected.

Ryan Mackey again

"This is wrong. To demonstrate the errors above, we will use the temperature data from Appendix C of NCSTAR1-5E, which is both representative of an ordinary fire and well suited to the situation in the WTC Towers. Mr. Hoffman here again complains about the “megawatt super-burner,” but the author reminds Mr. Hoffman that the “super-burner” was only active for the first 600 seconds of tests 1, 2, and 4, and the first 120 seconds of tests 3, 5, and 6. Readers may ignore these time periods if desired as they do not affect our conclusions, listed below:

Excepting only Test 5, thermocouples in Tree 2 experienced temperatures of over 800 oC for several minutes. In the case of Test 1, the period above 800 oC was over 20 minutes in duration. In tests 2 through 4, instrumentation was damaged by temperatures spiking above 1200 oC – and approaching 1600 oC in Test 2 – making a determination of duration impossible.

The lone exception, Test 5, was the test of “rubblized” workstations where combustible materials were collapsed, partially buried by ceiling tiles, and not provided additional ventilation. Lower temperatures are expected, but this case still produced gas temperatures of over 600 oC for roughly fifteen minutes.

· Thermocouples in Tree 3, located away from the burning workstations and thus less susceptible to damage, reported temperatures above 800 oC for at least ten minutes in all six tests. Readers are reminded that half of these tests involved no jet fuel, just ordinary office materials.
· These results directly contradict Mr. Hoffman’s claim, reprinted above, that temperatures above 800 oC are only produced for “a few seconds.”


Mr. Hoffman’s other mistakes in the excerpt above are as follows:

· In our discussion of Mr. Douglas’s claims in Appendix C of this whitepaper, we have criticized NIST on the basis that the jet fuel used in these tests – 4 L per workstation, as described on Page 8 of NCSTAR1-5E – was too little, approximately one third the amount expected to remain after the aircraft impact
and initial fireballs. Mr. Hoffman’s claim that “they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel” is in fact completely backwards. The author believes the amount was insufficient.
· The NIST Report does not imply, deceptively or otherwise, that there were sustained temperatures in excess of 1100 oC in the core. NIST’s estimates of gas temperatures are given in NCSTAR1-5F, and rarely exceed 700 oC in the core (the hottest example being Floor 96 of Case B). The temperatures and durations reported by NIST are totally consistent with the results of the compartment test in NCSTAR1-5E.

Show me a large structure demolished with thermite, thermate, super thermite, mega thermite nanothermite or whatever the theory is this year.

Sigh. You have twisted steel girders which were softened by the heat. These soft steel girders alone can explain the collapse of the building. So does your thermite family explain this softened steel? Are you saying that the columns were cut and caused collapse? Are you saying that an explosive caused the collapse? (even though one was not seen) Which one is it? What is the theory and does it explain softened girders? Stop being evasive.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No!

Yet he is still clinging to many flawed theories which he devised while lacking experience.

As clear as the evidence for a missile hitting the pentagon? It would not matter if every single line of his papers were debunked you would believe regardless. Some would consider this an admirable quality. I do not.

 

You cannot seriously think you can use (questionable) evidence for WTC7 to to determine the cause of the WTC1+2 collapse? Why not look at the wreckage of the Pentagon to determine what happened as well? This reasoning would be dishonest and flawed.

It cracks me up when I see this catchcry. By using it you are implying that a plane is enough to bring down a building.

Ah the article which states that they have found the reason for the collapse. While the evaporated comment is a strange one, if there were genuinely temperatures in that range then how did the engineers come to that conclusion?

No you are not thinking through what you are suggesting. If he was involved in the a cover up why would he make the comment? If he wasn't involved why would he be allowed to see steel and investigate it?

You claim over and over that not many people need to be involved yet with every post you increase the number of people you think are involved. Have you thought about that? You seem to have recently added the major media networks as well.

Firstly we still have no reliable evidence for molten steel. This has been done over and over. Well touch on it once more for the fun of it.

Loizeaux did not see any steel himself and said this.
From http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html


Mr. Bryan:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,
==========================

Mark Loizeaux, President


So where are these videos? There have been claims but there still seems to be no photos or video showing molten steel. These people are not going to be able to identify molten steel simply by looking at it so the eyewitness accounts need to be verified, particularly when there have already been attempts to pass off glowing metal as molten steel.

Secondly, if thermate or an explosive was used that would have no relevance to high temperatures five weeks later.

The problem is that the temperatures required are extremely unlikely and it would leave much more evidence than a comment by an engineer which seems to be contradicted by his team's report. You have an extremely unlikely scenario with no reliable evidence to support it.

If there were temperatures that high you would definitely have actual evidence for molten steel. You don't.

No but when you are taking something to be true when there is a lack of evidence you are using blind faith. Conspiracy theorists do not critically look at the evidence because they don't want to see that the conspiracy isn't there. (Don't even think about arguing the definition of conspiracy theory with me you know damn well what I meant)

Are you like the guy out of Memento? We have discussed those two before. Perhaps you think that you can wait a month and then bring something up which has been addressed and no one will notice. Wow so much evidence! Never mind that it is all crap.

Paul Isaac did not actually see anything himself he is just making claims of conspiracies. He is clearly ill-informed when it comes to structural engineering so his comments there are irrelevant. Once again, this incident was over seven years ago. In that time firemen have left the profession or retired. If hundreds of firemen had been murdered that day a simple 'gag order' would have come out by now. Fear of losing a job is not going to be effective for very long. You don't want to get this.

You are sounding more desperate now.
http://www.911myths.com/html/quote_abuse.html

"Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated."

Keep mining.

 

That is pretty funny because if big pieces of metal were falling from 90-100+ floors up and from the rear or sides where the person didnt see them then a reasonable person can believe they are hearing an explosion when they hit the concrete below. Especially with all the other things happening around them.

 

I have seen no evidence of it turning yellow under any conditions, but perhaps in dark conditions. However, Steven Jones et al have from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Bringham Young University have made it clear that it -never- appears so under daylight conditions:
***************************************
If aluminum alloy (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of roughly 500 - 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Furthermore, aluminum has unusually low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum at any temperature will appear silvery-gray (confirmed in experiments done at BYU). But this molten metal clearly appears bright yellow-white, in broad daylight. Hence, molten aluminum is also ruled out as an explanation.
***************************************
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/Papers/Molten metal.doc

 

Since not even NIST has considered those possibilities, I won't speculate on them. However, the alternate theory movement, which includes many scientists, believe that the only logical expalanation was that it was molten iron.

Why have you reached the conclusion that it is almost certainly not iron?

I believe the answer to that is that thermite placement wasn't uniform.

Why do you believe that it wasn't affected?

It has already been argued that the bowing may have been a simple refraction of light. Personally, I wouldn't rule out the idea that things like thermite might have caused some bowing, but the alternate movement experts haven't addressed that possibility.

I'll see if this point can be addressed. I'm guessing the reason it didn't, however, is that it was still reacting with the thermite, keeping it hot.

From the plane? From what I remember, there is evidence that a lot of it shot straight through the building and fell on the other side.

 

Yes, clearly there were high temperatures. The disagreement is in what caused those high temperatures. I have never heard of a fire starving for oxygen turning huge steel beams into twisted licorice sticks. And remember that a lot of those huge steel beams were nowhere near the impact zone. You may wish to consider the possibility that the official investigators took so few samples of the impact floor is not a 'non issue', as you put it.

Not by a long shot.

Kevin Ryan handily debunks the idea that 120 to 600 seconds is a trifling amount:
***************************************************
Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.

The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.
***************************************************
The article goes on, complete with some good graphics. You might want to take a look:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't affect his conclusions. And who is Ryan including when he states 'our conclusions'?

I don't have an answer to the above as of yet. I would like to stated, however, that Ryan Mackey has been thoroughly debunked in the past, as the following article makes clear:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html

At the outset of the article, a good point is made:
***********************************************
Following the publication of these, Mackey generated Version 2 of his essay. More than 300 pages in length, this version has lengthy fallacy-rich sections addressing Thurston's and Ryan's articles almost line-by-line.

This review will never be a complete reply to Mackey's essay. An attempt to create such a reply would be misguided since it would lend legitimacy to Mackey's method: generating masses of criticism of the targeted information using arguments with superficial plausibility -- the emphasis being on quantity -- while employing a vast array of propagandistic techniques, factual distortions, and logical fallacies. The rationale behind that method seems clear enough: create a smokescreen of baseless arguments and distractions, clothed in claims of intellectual superiority and scientific legitimacy, such that the audience might be reassured that there is no need to look at the evidence of controlled demolition.
***********************************************

 

Here you go

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have never claimed that it was done before or after 9/11. Clearly, the people who did it had deep pockets (perhaps using some of the money 'dissapearing' from the military's coffers: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2063758&postcount=1690) and a lot of expertise in nano-thermites. Like certain individuals in NIST, for example:
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/nist_thermite_connection.html

From what I've heard, the most likely explanation for those twisted steel girders are explosives, not the relatively small fires that were only on a few floors.

I'll excerpt Steven Jones' explanation for the collapse:
**********************************************
Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs — really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.

I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable than the official hypothesis. It deserves scientific scrutiny, beyond what I have been able to outline in this treatise.
**********************************************
http://physics911.net/stevenjones

I think it's akin to my overlooking part of a quote by Geoff because it was in brackets. Sometimes we don't see things even though they're in front of our eyes. Below I like an article with evidence that explosives were used, but for me, just looking at the pictures makes it clear that this was a controlled demolition:
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse update/

Such as?

No; many alternate theory believers don't believe that a missile hit the pentagon. Right now, I'm going for what is mentioned in www.thepentacon.com; that a plane approached the pentagon but then flew over it, and that explosives were used on the pentagon.

I admit that he might not have known about nanothermite at the beginning and instead of realizing that this signifies that I can question his reasoning, you somehow take it as a sign that I would believe him 'regardless'. You may want to review your logic.

 

Not at all. What fire temperature were the bolts rated to? Were they insulated?

You'll find my resistance to nonsense is surprisingly high. The 9/11 Troof movement is on its last legs.

Why? Do you disagree with it?

And? You'll find those who challenge every conceivable view in every conceivable organization.

It was Ganymede.

I've already read it, but it isn't cited. Where does he get this information? The scale of colour I've seen for aluminum ranges from silvery to red; it suggests it's temperature, not daylight that makes the difference, which makes more sense.

But he didn't see them himself anyway.

The WP article is based on the BBC one. It matter not at all if WP didn't retract; the story has already been falsified. It's over.

Possibly, in the wrong division.

You could hardly pick an unlikelier source to support an official government story than the BBC, Scott.

Yes, the link is broken; it was a long time ago and I imagine that the link was either changed or deleted altogether. I imagine you can find the article in some U.S. libraries. Anyway, let's see this 'followup work' by the BBC.[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_hijackers#Cases_of_mistaken_identities
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

I notice with the greatest amusement that "IslamOnline" has not retracted its story, to my knowledge. I wonder why that could be?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yet, even the likes of Saudi Arabia has admitted the identities of its hijackers.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200202/06/eng20020206_90055.shtml

Best regards,

Geoff

 

Sir, it entirely did. The artist in question (a suspicious mote from the get-go) was a Troofer for years and years, besides the analysis being so delayed. It's far too suspicious to be considered evidence.

Best,

Geoff

 

Who can say? We are all very willing to ascribe the basest intentions to governmental sources. Just the other day, a woman carved herself up and blamed it on Obama.

I see. I demand authentication, so I am being "unreal" about 9/11. Surely, if I was more realistic, I would accept the easy authority of those who claim 9/11 was a secret demolition carried out by thousands of government spider-men, or a giant hologram. Or carried out by a giant "la-zer" in orbit. Of course. Never mind that the affiliation of the person collecting the sample or the person analyzing the sample is to a conspiracy theory that requires it to show what they want it to.

She reverentially preserved dust? In a plastic bag. Again: it strikes me as highly unlikely.

And a radical supporter of controlled demolition? Thermate is only a series of its own components.

I'm hell-bent not to be led down the garden path by a pack of fools.

No. I am a Marxist-Leninist. Is this the new dialectic in Canadian youth: accept our tall tale or be consigned to the reactionary opposition?

Unfortunately, I'm not. My link states when he announced it. Perhaps Steven Jones is mistaken as to when Steven Jones announced his findings?

...how does what you posted constitute evidence of a controlled demolition??

Best regards,

Geoff

 

Fixed.

It's more like "fromage", you idiot.

So...

Checkmate!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There's nothing he can do. It belongs to me now!

Checkmate!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

His quote is completely uncited.

 

Oh I'll laugh alright... A conspiracy so vast that it involves not only the government, or those in the clean up operation, Larry Silverstein, the FDNY, the military, the woman who took a picture of the mushroom cloud from Flight 93, eye witnesses to the Pentagon crash, EVEN ME since you alluded that I may be a government agent!

...But you think the media is involved in the cover up too? Hahahahhahahahhahahah. Oh man... what is it like living in that head of yours?

I'm actually starting to think you should go see a professional.

 

I imply no such thing. I'm only implying that if no plane hit WTC 7, it was even -less- likely to collapse then the WTC buildings if no explosives were used.

A theory which has been discredited even by NIST.

You'd have to ask Jonathan Barnett and/or members of his assessment team. As the New York Times states, "Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker [were] part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks."

You may want to see a small youtube clip wherein he talks of surprise that tower 7 collapsed. He also states this:
"When you have a structural failure,
you carefully go through the debris field,
looking at each item, photographing every beam as it collapsed
and every column where it is in the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element.
We were unable to do that in the case of tower 7"

This suggests that Bill Manning, editor in chief of Fire Engineering, was on the mark when he said the following:
********************************************
Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.
********************************************
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225

I think the following statement sums it up nicely:
***************************************
Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. 1
***************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

The main issue is this: most people 'just follow orders'. Only the people at the top actually have the power to make certain decisions. For instance, -why- did the FEMA investigators not "have the authority to preserve the wreckage"? Who wanted it destroyed so fast? You may want to take a look at this:
********************************************
Ground Zero Players
The Players in the Ground Zero "Cleanup Operation"

The man on the spot on the day of the disaster was Rudolph Giuliani. As mayor he was in a position to control much of what happened to the crime scene of the attack on Lower Manhattan. He had the power to award contracts, and could do so unilaterally, since they were emergency contract awards. He also had the power to use the police force to control who was allowed access to the site.

Government Agencies

The federal agency that wielded the most control over the operation was the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which was involved from the beginning. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) also participated. Allen Morse, chief debris expert for the Corps, served as a technical adviser to FEMA.
********************************************

The article goes on here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/players.html