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

  1. #2001
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    yes quite so.
    You have any idea how many people died because those towers fell down?

  2. #2002
    honestly scott, you seem to have the mentality of a nine year old.

  3. #2003
    Quote Originally Posted by KennyJC View Post
    There is also evidence that the planes did negligible damage to the structural integrity of the twin towers.
    You know that big hole which cut many perimeter and core columns? Tore up floors, removed fire proofing and on top of this had extremely hot fires weakening the already damaged building?

    There's your loss of structural integrity right there.
    You may want to read the following post:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1996

  4. #2004
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    Just because some idiot described the steel as licorice doesn't mean he had the slightest bit of evidence to support the statement.
    There have been several articles where the softened steel was discussed. I’m pretty sure there was photographic evidence as well. The articles are usually brought up by the conspiracy theorists because Abolhassan Astaneh describes them as ‘melted’ in one of them.

    He is often mentioned by conspiracy theorists because he had complaints regarding the investigation. So by calling him an idiot and discarding his comments you are actually undermining the arguments of your troother mates.


    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    People who chose to believe that the planes could bring the buildings down that fast had to rationalize it after their destruction. They chose to refuse to consider the possibility that anything else was involved.
    Like explosives, missiles, thermite, nanothermite, superthemite, ray guns ect. Yeah ok.

    There has been several steel structures which collapsed due to fire. It really isn't so surpising, unless you have a desire to believe in conspiracies.
    Last edited by shaman_; 11-02-08 at 11:45 PM.

  5. #2005
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    998
    There have been several articles where the softened steel was discussed. Iím pretty sure there was photographic evidence as well. The articles are usually brought up by the conspiracy theorists because Abolhassan Astaneh describes them as Ďmeltedí in one of them.
    So find the temperature data in the NCSTAR1 report. Why talk about articles when there is a 10,000 page government report? Just download it and search it with Adobe. NOT THE SUMMARIES with that isolated pockets of 1800 deg. ROFL

    Like explosives, missiles, thermite, nanothermite, superthemite, ray guns ect. Yeah ok.
    So explain why you don't have a table specifying the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers from an OFFICIAL SOURCE? It has been SEVEN YEARS! It didn't take that long to design the buildings.

    Ever heard of the conservation of momentum? How is it that the top portion broke the support below and accelerated the mass below for it to come down in less than 18 seconds and yet you can't even specify the distribution of the mass below? Didn't the designers have to figure out how to make the building support itself? So why shouldn't that have been available within a few months.

    The laws of physics don't change for the sake of what ANYBODY prefers to BELIEVE.

    They don't care about sarcasm either.

    Even the NIST admitted that information was necessary:
    2.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations

    Accurate estimation of the towerís motion during the airplane impact required detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and impact velocity of the aircraft, as well as detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and structural strength of the tower. At the time of this test series (fall 2003), much of this information was unknown, and the impact motion could only be roughly estimated. To allow this estimate to be made quickly, many simplifying assumptions were made regarding the nature of the impact.
    http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5D.pdf page 74

    Damage Analysis of
    the World Trade Center Towers
    pdf page 143
    Figure 2Ė15. Displacement of floor 70 of WTC 2 after impact based on video analysis (NIST NCSTAR 1-5A).

    The impact of the aircraft into WTC 2 caused the tower to sway back and forth for almost four minutes. The estimated period of oscillation was found to be nearly equal to the calculated first mode period of the undamaged structure, indicating that the overall lateral stiffness of the tower was not affected appreciably by the impact damage. The maximum deflection at the top of the tower was estimated to be more than 1/3 of the drift resulting from the original design wind loads (about 65 in. in the NĖS direction) as calculated from the baseline analysis (see Chapter 4). Since the lateral stiffness of the building before and after impact was essentially the same, it can be concluded that the additional stresses in the columns due to this oscillation were roughly 1/3 of the column stresses resulting from the original design wind loads, assuming linear behavior and assuming that the oscillation mode shape and the static deflected shape under design wind loads were identical. The building demonstrated an ability to carry this additional load and therefore, still had reserve capacity. This was confirmed by the structural analysis of the damaged
    towers reported in NIST NCSTAR 1-6.
    The NIST just hands us that collapse was inevitable crap and thus avoids have to say anything about how the vertical distribution of mass would have to affect the collapse time. So the people capable of believing it do. Physics is not about BELIEF. Analysis requires accurate data, so where is it?

    Oh yeah, Dr. Sunder Dunderhead explained it. It was that 70% air by volume.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

    That comes to 15 tons of air per level by the way though the building averaged 770 TONS OF STEEL per level.

    psik
    Last edited by psikeyhackr; 11-03-08 at 12:24 AM.

  6. #2006
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    So find the temperature data in the NCSTAR1 report. Why talk about articles when there is a 10,000 page government report?
    This is a dodge on your part. Astaneh was an engineer who presented his findings on the steel (with complaints) at the 9/11 commission. He mentions the extremely soft steel in more than one article. I can find them if you want? Are you going to accuse him of being wrong or lying? Will you consider the contents of the NIST report to be the only evidence worth looking at?

    NIST did attempt to recreate conditions on 9/11 and in their tests they reached temperatures near 1000C.


    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    So explain why you don't have a table specifying the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers from an OFFICIAL SOURCE?
    Why would I? What are you rambling about?

    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    It has been SEVEN YEARS! It didn't take that long to design the buildings.

    Ever heard of the conservation of momentum? How is it that the top portion broke the support below and accelerated the mass below for it to come down in less than 18 seconds
    You have supposedly been through the NIST report. Ö.

    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    and yet you can't even specify the distribution of the mass below?
    Again, what the hell are you talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    Didn't the designers have to figure out how to make the building support itself? So why shouldn't that have been available within a few months.

    The laws of physics don't change for the sake of what ANYBODY prefers to BELIEVE.

    They don't care about sarcasm either.
    Do they care about upper case? lol If you have a point to make could you please make it without rambling.

  7. #2007
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Ok, after seeing their latest video, it seems that no one has actually said they saw the light poles being clipped by a plane,.
    No.
    http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoud.../witnesses.htm

  8. #2008
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    They took witness statements, which can clearly be seen in the video. The conclusions they drew up seem quite logical to me.
    Yes but you thought a missile hit the pentagon. Ö.


    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    They didn't ignore it. They simply stated that if people see a plane almost level with the pentagon, then they see an explosion soon after, then they hear the news reports stating that a plane hit the pentagon, it would be very easy for them to assume that the plane did, indeed, hit the pentagon.
    You arenít listening. Over 100 people say they saw the plane hit the pentagon. They didnít piece it together from the news the next day they saw a 767 hit the pentagon.


    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    The other incredibly important point is that the plane -could not- have hit the pentagon from the angle they all describe. Do you understand how important that is?
    What you donít understand is (1) that they have taken their own interpretation of witness accounts to fit their beliefs, those accounts were not even clear (2) they took accounts much later on. Witness testimony isnít perfect and there were contradictory points within the accounts they presented as their proof. If they actually interviewed a hundred or so people and a couple said the angle was a little different then it doesnít outweigh the 98. It also doesnít outweigh the testimony of 100+ people who saw it hit. You will never get this because you donít want to.

  9. #2009
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I prefer the alternate theory supporters who have links to people who have been published in peer reviewed journals myself:
    http://www.911blogger.com/node/15081
    I will repeat, if we are to believe Ryan Mackey there was no peer review.

  10. #2010
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Are you saying that the fact that the report makes no mention of evaporated steel means that it did not, in fact, reach those temperatures?
    Good work Scott!

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    If so, what evidence do you have that this is the case?
    Dr. Biederman and his team reported temperatures of a maximum of 850C.

  11. #2011
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    The fact that you call him an 'idiot' doesn't make him so. I have found his comments to be most informative.
    You have shown that you will believe nearly anything in regards to 9/11.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Yes, there are lots of people on the site who aren't architects or engineers. However, there are also more then 520 architects and engineers.
    No that person was in the list of ĎArchitecture and Engineering Professionalsí.


    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Not if you're not an architect or engineer, no. However, if you -are- one of these, then yes there is. Take a look:
    http://www.ae911truth.org/signnow.php

    I also encourage you to look at the credentials and information of all the architects and engineers that have signed the petition:
    http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php (just scroll down a bit)
    Yes I know you are mesmerized by credentials when they support the conspiracy but ignore them when in support of the official theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I think that's more a scientist thing. Steven Jones, who has been published in the past in Nature and Scientific American for his work on muon catalyzed fusion, has certainly submitted papers to peer reviewed journals and has recently gotten one published as well.
    Only one? In a little known journal which allegedly had no actual peer review and required only a payment? All these supposedly qualified people behind the conspiracy and thatís all you have? Thatís a little odd donít you think? I submitted 20 something peer reviewed papers which supported the official story.

    Once again, the fact that you keep bringing up his cold fusion work shows you are clueless to what is going on.

  12. #2012
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,942
    Wait...I thought we were talking about the collapse of the WTC 1 and 2, when did we switch back to the pentagon?

    Guess we must have solved that one. (yeah, right Mitch)

  13. #2013
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Originally Posted by scott3x
    Are you saying that the fact that the report makes no mention of evaporated steel means that it did not, in fact, reach those temperatures?
    Good work Scott!

    Dr. Biederman and his team reported temperatures of a maximum of 850C.
    I wish we could trust government reports to mention all the relevant data. But think for a moment; if that were true, we should conclude that WTC 7 didn't collapse, since it wasn't mentioned at all in the 9/11 Commission report

    They did finally investigate what happened to WTC 7. I would argue they did so because people demanded that such an investigation be done. I believe people now need to demand an investigation into -why- there was no mention of the melted and evaporated steel.

    As to the original FEMA investigation of WTC 7 they concluded, "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

    Yes, I know that aftewards, NIST continued to 'resolve' these issues. Here's an excerpt of their 5 year effort in action:
    ***********************************
    Molten metal? What molten metal?

    NIST, in its final report on WTC 7, ignored all of the evidence relating to molten metal, even though numerous reliable witnesses spoke of the presence of molten metal at Ground Zero. These witnesses included Richard Garlock, a structural engineer at Leslie E. Robertson Associates, an engineering firm involved in the design of the towers and the clean up of the site, who said "Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running."10

    The witnesses to molten metal also included University of California, Berkeley engineering professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, who was the first scientist given access to the steel at ground zero. Dr. Astaneh-Asl referred to the WTC steel he found as "kind of melted."11 Years later, when asked again about his experience he clarified, "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."12

    There are many other reports of molten metal at ground zero, including quite a few from those who support the Bush Administration's ever-changing fire-induced collapse theories. There are also photos supporting the reports of molten metal.13 But NIST continues to ignore all of this evidence in its new report.
    ***********************************
    http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...80911073516447

    It goes on, making it clear that NIST ignored a lot of evidence, including paper thin steel and sulfidation, the possibility of nano-thermite being used (it would handily account for the 'mysterious' sulfidation and extreme thinning of steel) and having ignored all this evidence, concludes "The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery".

  14. #2014
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    I will repeat, if we are to believe Ryan Mackey...
    Therein lies your problem

  15. #2015
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Originally Posted by scott3x
    Ok, after seeing their latest video, it seems that no one has actually said they saw the light poles being clipped by a plane, only that it happened. As to the witnesses themselves, that's an interesting story in and of itself. There's a long thread about it here:
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread191416/pg1
    No.
    http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoud.../witnesses.htm
    Ah, my apologies. In any case, many of the so called reports of witnesses to the downing of light poles have been discredited:
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//...showtopic=9680

  16. #2016
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I wish we could trust government reports to mention all the relevant data. But think for a moment; if that were true, we should conclude that WTC 7 didn't collapse, since it wasn't mentioned at all in the 9/11 Commission report

    They did finally investigate what happened to WTC 7. I would argue they did so because people demanded that such an investigation be done. I believe people now need to demand an investigation into -why- there was no mention of the melted and evaporated steel.

    As to the original FEMA investigation of WTC 7 they concluded, "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

    Yes, I know that aftewards, NIST continued to 'resolve' these issues. Here's an excerpt of their 5 year effort in action:
    ***********************************
    Molten metal? What molten metal?

    NIST, in its final report on WTC 7, ignored all of the evidence relating to molten metal, even though numerous reliable witnesses spoke of the presence of molten metal at Ground Zero. These witnesses included Richard Garlock, a structural engineer at Leslie E. Robertson Associates, an engineering firm involved in the design of the towers and the clean up of the site, who said "Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running."10

    The witnesses to molten metal also included University of California, Berkeley engineering professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, who was the first scientist given access to the steel at ground zero. Dr. Astaneh-Asl referred to the WTC steel he found as "kind of melted."11 Years later, when asked again about his experience he clarified, "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."12

    There are many other reports of molten metal at ground zero, including quite a few from those who support the Bush Administration's ever-changing fire-induced collapse theories. There are also photos supporting the reports of molten metal.13 But NIST continues to ignore all of this evidence in its new report.
    ***********************************
    http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...80911073516447

    It goes on, making it clear that NIST ignored a lot of evidence, including paper thin steel and sulfidation, the possibility of nano-thermite being used (it would handily account for the 'mysterious' sulfidation and extreme thinning of steel) and having ignored all this evidence, concludes "The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery".
    Once more scotch your a complete moron. It is jet fuel not diesel fuel. Two totally different chemicals. Who wrote that article a 7th grader?

  17. #2017
    <snip personal attack>
    Quote Originally Posted by fedr808 View Post
    It is jet fuel not diesel fuel. Two totally different chemicals. Who wrote that article a 7th grader?
    fedr, you may not have noticed that I'm talking about WTC 7, not the twin towers.

  18. #2018
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by fedr808 View Post
    Once more scotch your a complete moron.
    You mean "you are a complete moron" or alternatively"you're a complete moron".

  19. #2019
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Originally Posted by scott3x
    They took witness statements, which can clearly be seen in the video. The conclusions they drew up seem quite logical to me.
    Yes but you thought a missile hit the pentagon.
    I admit that I at times I have subscribed to an erroneous theory or 2 based on insufficient data. However, when data is shown to me which refutes the theory, I stop believing in it as well. This is what any good scientist would do.


    Originally Posted by scott3x
    They didn't ignore it. They simply stated that if people see a plane almost level with the pentagon, then they see an explosion soon after, then they hear the news reports stating that a plane hit the pentagon, it would be very easy for them to assume that the plane did, indeed, hit the pentagon.
    You aren’t listening. Over 100 people say they saw the plane hit the pentagon. They didn’t piece it together from the news the next day they saw a 767 hit the pentagon.
    The witness story is indeed quite a story. Aldo Marquis from CIT has made quite a list of the witnesses. He claims that there's only a total of 30 who could have seen or claim to have seen the impact.

    He's categorized the witnesses into the following categories:
    1- Only saw plane (possibly from far away location), could not see pentagon, light poles or impact, either deduced or are lying OR do not directly mention or CONFIRM seeing an impact.

    2- Claims they "Saw" impact of "plane"/large airliner-were in a position to possibly confirm one.

    3- "Saw" a plane & impact from far away, but DID NOT see a second plane/jet shadowing/chasing and veering away as the impact happened.

    He lists several other categories, complete with many remarks about the individual witnesses, which can be seen here:
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//...howtopic=10632

  20. #2020
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Ah, my apologies. In any case, many of the so called reports of witnesses to the downing of light poles have been discredited:
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//...showtopic=9680
    Buy a DVD from "the pilots" when you are there. Maybe scot3x gets a kick back for all the merchandising. $$$$

Similar Threads

  1. By Jozen-Bo in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 08-02-08, 03:09 PM
    Replies: 81
  2. By Tnerb in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 07-16-08, 02:06 PM
    Replies: 33
  3. By Thoreau in forum Politics
    Last Post: 12-09-07, 12:19 PM
    Replies: 18
  4. By Lord Hillyer in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 11-13-07, 02:33 PM
    Replies: 11
  5. By Orleander in forum Site Feedback
    Last Post: 10-27-07, 11:45 PM
    Replies: 16

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •