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

I lol'ed because by using ‘no plane hit this building’ it does imply that being hit by a plane is enough to destroy one. Don't you think that is a fair interpretation?

I’m really trying to keep my patience here scott. The point in contention was regarding the investigators and a strange comment for evaporated steel. My comment was that they were confident that they found the cause and the explanation made no account for evaporating steel. I am well aware of the report recently released with a different explanation but again, no mention of evaporating steel or temperatures even remotely near what would be needed to evaporate steel. The discussion was not switching to ‘what caused WTC7?’ and no my point was not refuted.

http://www.911myths.com/html/recycled_steel.html

Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team, in his testimony to the House of Representatives:

""There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures"."

The evidence was overwhelming and the steel examined supported this. There is no smoking gun or suspicious behavior here. The steel had to be cleaned up at some point, it certainly wasn’t done quickly and thousands of people had access at ground zero.

We have discussed that they had access to,at the very least, 40,000 tons of steel at the scap yard. Nothing was found that indicated a CD.

The funny thing is that, if they had taken a year and investigated every inch and found nothing you would just discard it because the people doing the tests are in on it. If there was steel which would have given the whole conspiracy away why did they let so much of it be looked over? Why would they use a method which could be found just by analysing steel which thousands of people had access to? Think about these flawed theories.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In terms of the rapid removal of the steel:
*****************************************
The pace of the steel's removal was very rapid, even in the first weeks after the attack. By September 29, 130,000 tons of debris -- most of it apparently steel -- had been removed. 4

During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, one hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for future study. 5 One hundred fifty pieces out of hundreds of thousands of pieces! Moreover it is not clear who made the decision to save these particular pieces. It is clear that the volunteer investigators were doing their work at the Fresh Kills dump, not at Ground Zero, so whatever steel they had access to was first picked over by the people running the cleanup operation.
*****************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

I've heard this glass make up. Let's see your evidence. Steven Jones' evidence has a thermate fingerprint. The other spherules were never tested for thermate from what I've heard.

No, they aren't. Those ideas are relegated to the fringe of the alternate story movement and some suspect that misinformation agents may be spreading them.

Do you have actual proof of that or do you just like accusing people?

I'm just saying that cooking up some thermate isn't exactly easy. Then there's the other issue that you have no motive for him to do so.

More then surprising. It seemed like you were making fun of communism in your 'east korea'.

Or atleast that's what you believe.

If there was, I'd agree. As it stands, we don't even know if there was. Even if there was, I believe the reason would be perfectly justifiable.

When have I said you shouldn't question? As to holes: there are pieces of information that neither the official stories or the alternate stories have answered. However, I have argued that the mainstream alternate stories have a lot more evidence then the official ones.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

pretty slick, slick.

scott3x,
do yourself a favor and scare up 4 or 5 videos of controlled demolitions.
i've found some on the net about farm silos, an outdoor football arena, and 3 different types of buildings. watch them . . . about 4 times each.
now, grab up the nearest WTC towers collapse from various angles and watch them.

i'm not exactly the brightest bulb on the wire but any idiot can see that the WTC towers did not collapse in a manner consistent with a controlled demolition.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've already seen non controversial controlled demolition videos, thanks. As to the WTC collapses, there were some characteristics that definitely were consistent with a normal CD (Controlled Demolition). There are also some that make it unusual for a CD. However, these unusual characteristics can still be accounted for by simply setting up an unusual CD. The characteristics for a CD that the WTC collapses displayed can be found here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2067218&postcount=1770

It also exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

Finally, high-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

 

name them.

the only consistency i can see is that in all cases the buildings fell down.

what is the nature of this unusual CD and how does it differ from a "normal" CD?

in cases like this a person must find their own evidence, not rely on someone elses "word for it".

i'm not sure about 1 but:
2. the videos taken on 9-11 does indeed show the tops of the towers leaning to one side right before the collapse. almost one entire side of one of the WTC towers was still standing after the collapse.
3. do you doubt that jet fuel temperatures are sufficient to soften steel?

finally, the buildings you mention were essentially girders with floors and walls attached.
the WTC buildings was of a different construction altogether.

watch and compare the videos, trust your eyes scott

 

Can you not see the desperate rationalizing you are employing here? You have a deep belief that it was a CD so the fact that this collapse had little in common with a controlled demolition you just explain away with the line “However, these unusual characteristics can still be accounted for by simply setting up an unusual CD”. The building did not fall like a controlled demolition. Deal with it.

… like sagging floors

Gravity tends to pull downward. Though the collapse was not symmetrical. Remember the lean and the top hitting WTC7.

Yes never mind the raging fires started with thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

Smaller buildings with concrete cores that weren’t hit by planes…..

Cases of steel structures collapsing from fire have been presented and ignored.

 

Welcome to the discussion voyager. Be prepared to repeat yourself many times when discussing with Scott.

 

Thanks. Now here's my question:

How did the cleanup people sort so much steel so fast for the criteria you're alluding to? By this, I mean: on what criteria were they able to separate the suspicious pieces from the non-suspicious pieces so quickly? Did they have a little portable thermite detector or something? This is hundreds of thousands of pieces of steel. Did they check every little one? All the surfaces?

And are they all in on it? Wouldn't this have been rather a lot of people? The amount of the steel retained for analysis is no great surprise either: one doesn't sample every snail in the stream, you realize. We get a few dozen out of the thousands and thousands that are there. Moreover, wouldn't all the steel lying around interfere with rescue and recovery?

The timeframe isn't really suspicious; the families of the victims want the bodies returned ASAP, naturally. Moreover, and more importantly, the tiniest hope of their survival - slim at Sept 29, I'll grant - would make the matter a very urgent one. Even for the dead have their urgencies: muslim burial rites, for instance, demand no more than two days between expiration and interrment. (Possibly three, can't recall exactly.)

Certainly you may have it.

Aside from iron and oxygen, that's all the elements in the thermite signature. Or thermate. Or nanothermite. Or nanothermate.

Further to the glass-and-aluminum issue:

So this theory accounts quite nicely for the whole thermate argument. It was glass, probably mixed with small bits of iron or steel from anything from local hotspots to photocopier filling. See also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh, lord, here we go. "Those crazy ideas? Well, they're from government plants! And if you disagree with me...well, you're a government plant! Or at least you might well be. I haven't decided. Since the CD must have occurred (Prophet Steven swears it so by the gods of Thermate), it's the only explanation! It couldn't possibly be that the whole theory is crazy." Who thinks that? Some think that. Who are some? Some people know. It is rumoured. The scuttlebutt agrees. The leaves swirled just so. The entrails were blackened. The stars gave us a poor omen for conspiracies born in the month of September. Come on, Scott.

:shrug: A bit of both, to be honest. Yet, Steven Jones is intricately involved with the theory; he's tacked his career to it. I wouldn't want him punished for that - and in a properly communist nation he wouldn't be - but you can't deny he's got a monetary interest in it. I feel bad for him, really.

Are you being serious now? No motive? None? Come on, Scott.

Of course I was.

For the love of God, man, whatever my political beliefs, you do realize that the history of the dialectic has not exactly been 100%? Stalin, Pot bloody Pot, China; communism has had its share of dictators and more. The fact that I can criticize my own system does not alienate me from that system, although it may alienate me from those blind to the faults of that system.

That being said, is capitalism better? Absolutely not. It is a form of utter economic slavery, period, with countless lives broken in the mad, stupid chase for the same bloody dollar. "Trickle-down", my arse. But this doesn't mean I can't laugh at my own dialectic. I think history will prove Marxism-Leninism right, but I'm not going to pretend there were no gulags, no crackdown of dissidents, no massacre of the Ukrainians. I could hardly force my opinions on anyone or muzzle criticism of my beliefs; nor even muzzle my own criticisms. To do so would be the height of immorality and hypocrisy; should I damn Pinochet and cover my eyes to Stalin?

No, it's a fact. Why was the delay so long? For what reason? Jones had the smoking gun all this time, and only chose to show it now?

In other words: I don't care what the reason was. I believe too strongly in CD to think otherwise. Listen to yourself, Scott.

When you tell me the only reason I poke holes in this nonsense is because I don't want to question the official story. I should question it, but not you? This seems to be your thesis: I believe everything about 9/11 Troof is troo, and I cannot be convinced otherwise, so you will have to change your beliefs.

...eh?

Best,

Geoff

 

I believe that if someone has some staggering miscomprehension, it's Mackey.

I went back in the posts and now realized that when you said: "The strength of bolts connecting steel girders vis-a-vis fire resistance?". So the issue was always the bolts, not the steel girders. My apologies. In terms of the bolts, I hope you have now noted not only that no experts on either side of the debate now support the notion that the bolts were the proble and that you have read the following:
**********************************
Bolts stayed strong

Thick bolts fastened to the column more than 30 years ago - securing it to a much thinner structural plate - were still in place. But the plate ripped apart.

"You can tell by looking at this where the failure occurred," DePaola said. "It occurred in the plate - not the bolts."

Exactly why the plate broke will be investigated as part of a $16 million federal probe into the collapse, which is getting underway in Gaithersburg, Md.
**********************************
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2002/04/16/2002-04-16_wtc_girder_is_key_to_collaps.html

How about the first counter I made in the following post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2063808&postcount=1695

 

Once more. Jet fuel of that quantity burns at 8000+ degrees. It could easily shatter the bars just from the extreme difference in heat. Also a lot of people said that the highest temperature of jet fueel is 1000 degrees. The tiny amount of fuel in the engine (and i say tiny) hits 2,400 degrees. So imagine whatan enormous tank of the stuff burns at. Also people claim seeing fires that werent jet fuel. Yah lets remember that it was an office space and there were probably a 20,000 individual sheets of paper in the place that got hit.

 

Unlicensed frequencies are causing destructive interference all the time. Yes digital communication reduces this, but it is not eliminated. Cell phones run on 750/850/1750/1800/1900/2100 Mhz frequencies. They don't just run on that frequency, but a band of frequencies around it (to allow for the passage of information). These transmissions generate harmonics at frequencies above and below the band they transmit at. That's just cell phones. All this crap we use causes lots of noise that will interfere with your presumed wireless detonators.

Case in point, have you ever had to push your garage door opener more than once when you are approaching your house? Sometimes mine works from a couple hundred feet away, and sometimes I have to push it again when I get closer, because of the interference from other devices in my neighborhood.

Additionally, computers and electrical wires put out all kinds of harmonics, and I'm sure some of your imaginary explosives would have to be next to power runs.

False. Have you ever tried to run wires or cables through a high rise? You definitely do not have "unobtrusive" access to all parts of the structure.

 

That 'et al' for the truth movement runs in the millions. In fairness, however, I will say that the bolts thing now appears to not have been your idea; but as I have shown, no one of any stature appears to believe in it anymore.

Wikipedia defines a hypothesis thusly:
"A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις) consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

Anyone can suppose something. Testing it simply means you look to find if evidence one gathers supports or disproves said hypothesis. Why you feel I don't do this, I don't know.

I think that once one -finds- evidence that supports a hypothesis, it could become a scientific theory. Or, as Wikipedia puts it:
"In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Look, if you or anyone else wants to come up with a hypothesis or theory regarding 9/11, be my guest. However, I'm not going to do your research for you. If you think the bolts or whatever wasn't up to speck even though no one else seems to think it was a problem, I think it behooves -you- to do the research. I feel that I have my hands full defending the many fairly mainstream alternative theories that I believe in to try to disprove theories that come from isolated groups or even a single individual.

 

Structural engineers are a somewhat rare breed, but they are certainly not uniform in their praise of the official story; glancing briefly a while ago at the list of 520 architects and engineers in the "Architects and Engineers" on the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" page, I saw 1 structural engineer in their ranks.

But I think you yourself are the one who's getting a bit dazzled here. You don't need to be a structural engineer in order to realize that the official WTC collapse theory is full of holes. I believe that a firm grasp of physics will do just fine. Even if you only took a high school course in physics (I raise my hand), I think that with a little work and an open mind, you can see that many if not all of the 9/11 official theories collapse under scrutiny.

My point is this is a guy who has been frequently peer reviewed, and has even been peer reviewed on such a sensitive subject such as the events that took place on 9/11.

If he said that it was peer reviewed, I'll take his word for it over yours. This is a guy who has been peer reviewed in such noteworthy scientific magazines as Scientific American and Nature. Have -you- ever been published in a peer reviewed publication like that?

Aside from that video and another I have shown (which makes it clear that it was indeed a molten metal other then aluminum), there's plenty and I've already shown a fair amount of it. Here's a good link on the subject:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

 

I did a little research regarding Gene Corley. Here's a few things I found:
The authors of the Murrah Building report concerning the Oklahoma bombing are the same individuals who comprised the original ASCE team:
* Dr W. Gene Corley
* Charles Thornton
* Paul Mlaker
* Mete Sozen

The link to that info is here: http://911research.wtc7.net/non911/oklahoma/index.html

Kevin Ryan says of this team:
"Several of these individuals have strong connections to industries that benefited from the attack, such as armaments makers and oil and gas producers."
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html

Kevin Ryan speaks a bit more in his article 'The Peculiar WTC "Experts"':
*************************************
When Matthew Rothschild, editor of the online magazine The Progressive, wrote an article called “Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already”, we all knew he was not talking about the conspiracy theory that the US government sells us to justify the expanding 9/11 Wars.[1] To the contrary, in writing that article Mr. Rothschild was selling that same theory himself. What he actually meant was that people should not question the US government’s story of terror because credentialed experts have been found to support it. But the fact is that the experts found to support the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 are predominantly those who profit from doing so. That’s not to say that all of these people were “part of the conspiracy”. But they are, whether consciously or not, a part of the cover-up. And that, of course, is the greater crime.

The Bush Administration employed a number of such credentialed experts to give us multiple explanations for the unprecedented destruction of three tall steel-framed buildings at the World Trade Center (WTC). Unfortunately, all of those explanations have proven to be false, and this fact reminds us that academic credentials don’t necessarily make a person more capable, or more likely, to tell the truth.

Exactly how they could find so many experts on the fire-induced collapse of tall buildings is not immediately clear, considering such an event had never happened before. But it did help that the questions were quickly framed as being solely matters of structural engineering, a sub-field of civil engineering, because structural engineers cannot find work without continual government approvals. A Chemistry laboratory manager like myself can work without permits or licenses, but people can’t just go out and build a bridge or a tall building on their own. The extensive paperwork necessary to complete civil engineering projects is obtained by working closely with, and staying on good terms with, local and national authorities. That fact may not be enough to ensure vocal support for the official story of “global collapse”, but it has been enough to keep most structural engineers from publicly opposing the intransigent government stance on the WTC events.

From where, then, has the vocal support come within the engineering community? Matthew Rothschild points to some interesting characters when he says that “I made a few calls myself”, including to Gene Corley and to Mete Sozen. Additionally, Rothschild says that he consulted “some of the top building design and engineering firms”, like Skidmore Owings & Merrill, and Greenhorne & O’Mara. To emphasize just how solid the government’s story is, he adds that he “also contacted engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country, and none of them puts any stock in the 9/11 conspiracy theories.”

What Mr. Rothschild failed to tell us is that Gene Corley and Mete Sozen not only created the reports that he is defending, but have also, for many years, worked for the US Department of Defense (DOD) through the Blast Mitigation for Structures Program (BMSP). Since 1997, this program has provided the DOD with expertise in explosives, and has been funded at $10 million annually.[2] After 9/11, astronomical increases in DOD funding were likely to have benefited all DOD partners and programs, like DOD’s Nunn-Perry award winner, Greenhorne & O’Mara, and those involved with the BMSP. Of course, the DOD was probably already awash in black-budget funds prior to 9/11, as indicated by the missing trillions reported by the DOD on 9/10/01.[3]

Rothschild also failed to let us know that Skidmore Owings & Merrill (SOM), one of his independent engineering firms, is responsible for the architectural design of the new Freedom Tower. SOM gained that contract at the personal insistence of Larry Silverstein, the original owner of WTC 7 and the WTC towers’ leaseholder. Mr. Rothschild may also not be aware that William Baker, a top executive at SOM, was involved in several of the official WTC investigations and reports that have been generated. In any case it is clear that the “Freedom Tower” would not be the publicity-rich project it is today if an alternative explanation forced us to rename it the “There Goes Our Freedom Tower”.
*************************************
The article continues here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5071

 

Based on what? A steel-and-concrete building is massive in a way a Lego building simply is not. If the top part of a Lego building suddenly loses its support ( you say demolition, I say failed construction), does it ride the remainder of the edifice all the way to the ground? No. Lego, Connectix, whatever. Surely you see that the scale issues are not at all the same?

Indeed. But now I gather that the plates failed. No explosives required, then?

How about it? What did it effectively counter?

The et al for the official story runs in the millions too. But why would it matter if I proposed it versus anyone else? If an idea makes sense, why would the stature of the person proposing it matter? You have fallen into the trap of Argument from Authority, and you cannot get up.

Very good. The Troof movement have already concluded demolition (the explanation), and now seek obervable phenomena (nanothermite, squibs, orbital "la-zers") to explain it. Well enough, but the problem is that when these phenomena fail to support the thesis, the hypothesis changes again. It wasn't a hologram, so it must be an actual plane followed by a demolition. It wasn't a demolition, so the building must have imploded under Karl Rove's powerful thought-rays. It's not falsifiable from their perspective; no test can ever result in the H0: It wasn't blown up. So, it's not scientific, but faith-based.

It's like me asking an Evangelist whether or not he'd stop believing in God if I could prove to him evolution was true, or even that God didn't exist: he'd say no. Of course it wouldn't change his view; it's a matter of faith, not intellect.

Will you now view SLC, as I have asked repeatedly. Honestly, this is only fair.

Best,

Geoff

 

I agree with him that we can't discount their origin without a bit more 'careful study'. Fortunately for us, Jim Hoffman is here to do just that:
*************************************
He addresses other features, like the iron-rich micro-spheres, but with tedious lists of possible explanations, few of which make sense. For example, he suggests that the sphere could have been from magnetic printer toner, which he claims have iron particles in that size range. Really? -- particles up to the 1.5mm diameter ones found in the dust? He also claims the quantity of the particles was "thought to be very small" because it was between 0.1 to 1.5 percent of the dust. But how small is that? Just 0.1 percent of 10,000 tons is 10 tons.

Mackey promotes the misconception that aluminothermic reactions are necessarily slow burning to argue that any residues would have to be large pools rather than small droplets.
*************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html

 

What makes you believe this?

As far as I'm concerned, the evidence that the WTC collapses were due to controlled demolitions is overwhelming. Thus, it is my 'working model', if you will. I will certainly try to see if evidence can work with this model. Scientists do this all the time. And just like scientists, if I'm not sure it does or if I find that it outright doesn't, I will certainly take this into account.

I can certainly believe that some of the theories may need a little work. People like Steven Jones have emphatically stated that they would like more research to be done on all of these things. Heck, even Ryan Mackey claims that more research could shed more light on certain issues.

I think you may have seen from Headspin's youtube video on the subject of molten aluminum at 1000 Fahrenheit that molten aluminum when poured at that temperature is definitely silver. Since even NIST doesn't believe the metal could have been any hotter and yet the metal is yellow/white, it makes it clear that what was coming out of that building couldn't have been molten aluminum.

 

Can you cite where I supposedly did this?

 

If I had only done a bit of browsing, we wouldn't be on the 90th page of this thread.

 

I would argue the opposite. Why is it that you feel that Ryan is wrong?