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

**GeoffP** · 09-30-08, 05:02 PM

Well, all the other Troofers do. So it must be "Troo" (that is, "to contain truthiness"). So why do the thermite explosives used to cut the steel go boom instead of hiss? Thermite goes hiss, not boom.

As for the question you didn't comprehend, it's quite straightforward: does a gas fire create enough heat to melt steel?

Geoff

**~~scott3x~~** · 09-30-08, 05:53 PM

I've decided to say something that I've begun to think about. Anyone who's been in this thread a while knows that I'm a strong disbeliever of the official story. But I am more than just a disbeliever of the official story. I have a life outside of who was responsible for 9/11/2001 and so does everyone else here.

Just because I disagree with Geoff doesn't mean I don't laugh when he talks of articulation. There are times when I simply tune out of here, because we focus so narrowly on 9/11 and so little on anything else that goes on in our lives. I now work some, so that keeps me busy a bit, but when I just want to get away from whether or not it matters if it's provable that barium nitrate was present at the 9/11, I go play World of Warcraft. In fact, it may well be said that the only reason I was fairly busy today was because WoW was down for most of the day.

**~~scott3x~~** · 09-30-08, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by GeoffP

Well, all the other Troofers do.

I never said that thermite went boom either.

**KennyJC** · 09-30-08, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Boom?

Please Geoff, show me where I characterized thermite ignition as creating a "boom"?

Since you raised the subject, sources tell me that thermite is available in a composition
that is explosive in character.

"nanothermite composite leads to a fast propagating combustion, generating shock waves with Mach numbers up to 3"

Mach 3 is equivalent to 1,020 m/s.

"High explosives...detonates at rates ranging from 1,000 to 9,000 meters per second"

So I guess Nano-thermite can behave similarly to a high explosive including the sound wave.

MM

Sounds to me like we can also rule out nanothermite if it would be highly explosive. Let's just make it clear that no explosions were heard from any tower prior to collapse.

So... what do you think happened again?

**Ganymede** · 09-30-08, 07:58 PM

Day after Day, week after week, month after month. Hell, if you spent as much time looking for a job as you did posting in this forum you would be employed already.

Zinger

**GeoffP** · 09-30-08, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x

I never said that thermite went boom either.

Well, then how do the ever-so-critical explosions fit in, then? Thermite does not go boom. Why have boom?

Originally Posted by Ganymede

Day after Day, week after week, month after month. Hell, if you spent as much time looking for a job as you did posting in this forum you would be employed already.

Zinger

I am, Ganyweed. And profitably, too. Good Ol' Uncle Sam.

**KennyJC** · 09-30-08, 09:14 PM

edit - i appear to have doubleposted.

**KennyJC** · 09-30-08, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by Ganymede

Day after Day, week after week, month after month. Hell, if you spent as much time looking for a job as you did posting in this forum you would be employed already.

Zinger

I have to say, ever since you put me on ignore (even though I know you still read my messages), you have been acting like a wounded animal.

After defeating you, the only thing you have been good for is going around calling people spooks. It's nice to see however, that you don't appear to be serious about the spook thing anymore now that you know I'm an unemployed immigrant.

Thanks for your concern about my job status, and wish me luck for my interview tomorrow.

P.S. Rest assured that when I do get a job, I will always have time to show people like you up as a bunch of liars.

**GeoffP** · 09-30-08, 09:16 PM

Well, I wish you good luck, Kenny.

**Headspin** · 10-01-08, 03:54 AM

Originally Posted by KennyJC

Sounds to me like we can also rule out nanothermite if it would be highly explosive. Let's just make it clear that no explosions were heard from any tower prior to collapse.

Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings:

youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

**~~John99~~** · 10-01-08, 04:01 AM

another refugee from the other forum?

**Headspin** · 10-01-08, 04:13 AM

Originally Posted by John99

because you have the official story and the unofficial story. with so many people in the world there will always be those hawking unofficial stories. some for political reason, some to build themselves a web site, some to write books and make dvd's. some play movies maker etc. some delusional too.

with so many people in the world there will always be those hawking the official story. some for political reason, some to build themselves a web site, some to write books and make dvd's. some play movies maker etc. some delusional too.

That card plays from both sides of the fence.

**Headspin** · 10-01-08, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by GeoffP

Oh, and: Does gas melt steel or not?

why is this question relevant?

**~~John99~~** · 10-01-08, 04:20 AM

Imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

All you have to do is look at post 1030 and think a little. Soon you will find the problem because it is right in front of you but i wont tell you what it is.

**~~scott3x~~** · 10-01-08, 05:22 AM

Originally Posted by John99

Imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

All you have to do is look at post 1030 and think a little. Soon you will find the problem because it is right in front of you but i wont tell you what it is.

John, saying you can see a flaw that we can't doesn't help anyone; it clearly doesn't help us because your using the Bush Administration's "secret evidence" strategy (you can't defend yourself against alleged evidence you don't know about), but it doesn't help you either, because it doesn't give your argument any weight (anyone can say they see a flaw in someone's argument) and if your alleged flaw theory is in fact flawed, you will continue with your flawed theory for lack of others knowing about it altogether.

**~~scott3x~~** · 10-01-08, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by John99

another refugee from the other forum?

Headspin is not a 'refugee'. He was helping me out from loosechange and I suggested that he come over here and respond directly. He has a lot of knowledge of 9/11 and I'm glad he came.

**~~scott3x~~** · 10-01-08, 05:25 AM

Originally Posted by KennyJC

Sounds to me like we can also rule out nanothermite if it would be highly explosive. Let's just make it clear that no explosions were heard from any tower prior to collapse.

So... what do you think happened again?

Kenny, no one said explosions didn't occur. We have said that thermite doesn't go boom. Nanothermite does, however.

**Headspin** · 10-01-08, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by shaman_

I would like clarification on what "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center" means exactly

it means that he saw melted steel girders at the wtc.

**Headspin** · 10-01-08, 06:27 AM

“ Originally Posted by KennyJC
Sounds to me like we can also rule out nanothermite if it would be highly explosive. Let's just make it clear that no explosions were heard from any tower prior to collapse. ”

see video titled: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings:
youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

Originally Posted by John99

All you have to do is look at post 1030 and think a little. Soon you will find the problem because it is right in front of you but i wont tell you what it is.

“ Originally Posted by shaman_
I would like clarification on what "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center" means exactly ”

Here is the problem:

KennyJC says "Let's just make it clear that no explosions were heard"

here is a 10 minute video which refutes his claim with a mountain of evidence:
youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

the video documents dozens of independent witnesses describing bombs, explosions and detonating bombs. KennyJC's cannot know there were no explosions, bombs or nanothermite simply by stating "let's just make it clear there were no explosions, bombs or nanothermite", when the evidence is presented right in front of his eyes.

John99's rebuttal is simply to dismiss the video evidence and first hand witness statements presented right in front of his eyes by inferring "that evidence doesn't exist", declaring that he doesn't need to give reasons for dismissing it, pleading with us to subscribe to a "belief" in the official story.

When presented with a structual engineer stating "I saw melted girders at the wtc" Shaman says he would like clarification of "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center", but there can be no clarification of this, it is a precise quote with valid context from an expert first hand wtiness. perhaps what he would like is obfuscation rather than clarity, because he cannot deal with what is presented to him right in front of his eyes.

This is not a scientific discussion of the data.
This is not an investigation into the evidence.
These are not honest conclusions.
This is simply choosing one's own reality, some would say "delusional".

The only question now is WHY Shaman, KennyJC and John99 behave this way and invest so much effort in propping up the official story.