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

  1. #1161
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Ofcourse steel can go over 650C, given the right circumstances. This is what I was quoting:
    ************************************************** **********
    Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF ... Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100ºF ... And at 1800º it is probably at less than 10 percent. Here the article implies that flame temperatures and steel temperatures are synonymous, ignoring the thermal conductivity and thermal mass of steel, which wicks away heat. In actual tests of uninsulated steel structures subjected to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires conducted by Corus Construction Co. the highest recorded steel temperatures were 680ºF.
    ************************************************** **********
    http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
    For the third time, that figure is meaningless because there is no mention of the atmosphere temperature. In other tests where the temperature of the atmosphere was comparable to 9/11 the temperature of the steel went over 900C.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Can you post that again or link to the post where you say link that?
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1118
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...cs/6105942.stm

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I've already said that a bridge isn't a steel framed building.
    The steel weakened due to the fire and the bridge collapsed. It's an important fact and your refusal to see this makes you come across as a religious nut.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Quite the opposite:
    ************************************************** **********
    I listened to the morning news on National Public Radio this morning to hear the news of the Windsor Tower in Madrid. Had it collapsed in a mushroom cloud of concrete dust? Had metal beams been thrown tens of meters sideways as the tower fell to the ground in a few seconds after burning "like a candle" for nearly 24 hours?

    How odd. There were no news reports about the Edificio Windsor near the Corte de Ingles (note the connections to Rio Tinto, who owns the land they stand on).

    This was incredibly odd. If the building was still standing after burning like a torch for 24 hours, then something is very wrong with either our building techniques in the USA - or something is very wrong with the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team study carried out by engineers with the American Society of Civil Engineers at the World Trade Center in 2001-2002.

    If the building had fallen, well then the theory advanced by the BPAT, that fire can cause steel framed concrete building to fall into piles of rubble, would have been validated.

    So, I listened. And I listened. Nothing. NPR was not interested in this event and what it had to say about 9/11.
    ************************************************** **********
    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2796
    No not quite the opposite at all. Like most conspiracy theorists you have done a few minutes research at your favorite sites but have not made the effort to understand what you are reading. The Madrid Tower had a concrete center that kept it standing after the steel collapsed. The WTC did not..

  2. #1162
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffP View Post
    So why would they care? 5000 American dead already in Iraq. What would it matter to them? Your argument makes no sense
    Yes, but the 5000 dead in Iraq are maintaining the US's grip on Iraqui oil (atleast for a little while longer anyway) and giving the US government the muscle to give out juicy contracts to the likes of Shell. What would killing more people on 9/11 have accomplished? If the disaster was big enough, I think it would have affected these inside jobbers negatively as well.


    Not at all. If the secret cabal is in on it, it would have been absurdly easy to insert someone to look the other way as bombs were loaded; in particular, this "frozen smoke" would have elicited no alarm as it doesn't look like an explosive.
    In terms of a bomb, I'm not so sure about that. In terms of the frozen smoke, I believe it was done, but it had to be done in the building:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1146


    There is talk that atleast one of the planes that hit on of the WTC towers was indeed carrying a bomb.
    Sigh. First there's no bomb, then there is a bomb; are you deliberately vague or trying to leave some wiggle room?
    The bomb or pod beneath the plane thing is something I only took seriously recently. However, even more recently, I've decided that that claim may in fact be false.


    But why does the collapse only occur at the impact site? it's almost as though it were hit by a plane or something.
    I can certainly imagine that that's what it was meant to look like. However, there has been a lot of evidence showing that the planes did minimal damage to the structure. However, as I've already mentioned, there were certain upgrades on most if not all of the floors that initially collapsed. Here is a post detailing this:
    http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChange...=44231&t=99915


    Without this careful planning, the laws of physics would rule that the building would try to fall in the path of least resistance; that is, into open air instead of onto perfectly solid lower floors.
    And so what? This would matter nothing to the Lizardoid cabal.
    I doubt the 'lizardoid cabal' could break the laws of physics. Thank goodness we have a physics professor like Steven Jones to remind us of these laws.


    Originally Posted by scott3x
    Yes, there would have been; deception. Take a look at this:
    **************************************************
    The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure suggests that spray-on nano-thermite materials may have been applied to the steel components of the WTC buildings, underneath the upgraded fireproofing (Ryan 2008). This could have been done in such a way that very few people knew what was happening. The Port Authority’s engineering consultant Buro Happold, helping with evaluation of the fireproofing upgrades, suggested the use of “alternative materials” (NIST 2005). Such alternative materials could have been spray-on nano-thermites substituted for intumescent paint or Interchar-like fireproofing primers (NASA 2006). It seems quite possible that this kind of substitution could have been made with few people noticing.
    **************************************************
    Again; you would have to demonstrate that such materials were used, that the materials were not simply substandard fireproofing, and even that there was any fireproofing on at all. You would also have to demonstrate that such materials could be sprayed on, as you suggest.
    I'd love to. Unfortunately, I don't have the resources to do this. The real question is, why hasn't the -government- tested for these things? Ofcourse, if high level government officials were complicit in all of this, they wouldn't want to test any of this, now, would they? There's a lot of evidence that suggests that the very people who are dimissing claims that nanothermites were used at the very people who know so much about it. Don't you consider this a little odd?

    Kevin Ryan goes into a little more detail in his article "The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites". Here's the introduction to his article:

    ************************************************** ********
    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 (Douglas 2006, Ryan 2006, Gourley 2007). But despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials.
    ************************************************** ********
    http://www.911review.com/articles/ry...onnection.html

  3. #1163
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffP View Post
    Just answer this: why did the government remove all the videos wherein this matter could have been easily resolved?
    Remove which videos?
    The following ones:
    ************************************************** ********


    Steve Watson / Infowars | May 17 2006

    The FBI is withholding at least another 84 surveillance tapes that were seized in the immediate aftermath of the attack on the Pentagon.

    There is an ongoing lawsuit to get these tapes released via the Freedom of Information Act. The FBI has admitted in a statement to attorney, Scott Hodes, representative of Mr Scott Bingham who runs the website http://www.flight77.info/, that they have these tapes, that they have already analyzed them and are still keeping them under lock and key.

    A great deal of speculation has surrounded reports that on the morning of september 11th, 2001 the FBI visited two private businesses near the pentagon and confiscated several security camera video tapes.

    The first is said to be the Cigto gas station with several security cameras aimed in the direction of the pentagon. Flight 77 flew directly over the gas station at an altitude of roughly 50 feet, less than 3 seconds from impact.

    Three months after 9/11 The National Geographic and others reported on this, publishing short interviews with the gas station owner, Jose Velasquez.
    ************************************************
    http://www.infowars.net/articles/may...gon_videos.htm

  4. #1164
    Caput gerat lupinum GeoffP's Avatar
    Posts
    20,578
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Yes, but the 5000 dead in Iraq are maintaining the US's grip on Iraqui oil (atleast for a little while longer anyway) and giving the US government the muscle to give out juicy contracts to the likes of Shell. What would killing more people on 9/11 have accomplished? If the disaster was big enough, I think it would have affected these inside jobbers negatively as well.
    It would have accomplished the enviable position of not having a bunch of ex-teens storming out of Urban Outfitters and into the street with their "Inside Job" signs every time a roadie flipped on a movie camera.

    In terms of a bomb, I'm not so sure about that. In terms of the frozen smoke, I believe it was done, but it had to be done in the building:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1146
    OK, so no bomb on plane?

    The bomb or pod beneath the plane thing is something I only took seriously recently. However, even more recently, I've decided that that claim may in fact be false.
    I - ah! Oha! Ahooha! Dodge, duck, dive and dodge.

    I can certainly imagine that that's what it was meant to look like. However, there has been a lot of evidence showing that the planes did minimal damage to the structure. However, as I've already mentioned, there were certain upgrades on most if not all of the floors that initially collapsed. Here is a post detailing this:
    I'ts really better if you post your own words on this.

    I doubt the 'lizardoid cabal' could break the laws of physics. Thank goodness we have a physics professor like Steven Jones to remind us of these laws.
    Hehe. No, your point was more that they used careful planning to avoid the building falling sideways, not that Captain Controlled Demolition saved physics for all the little Troofers on the 9/11 Day that evil nasty Mr. GrinchBush was going to steal all their placards. The laws of physics would hardly be broken by a sideways fall.

    I'd love to. Unfortunately, I don't have the resources to do this. The real question is, why hasn't the -government- tested for these things? Ofcourse, if high level government officials were complicit in all of this, they wouldn't want to test any of this, now, would they? There's a lot of evidence that suggests that the very people who are dimissing claims that nanothermites were used at the very people who know so much about it. Don't you consider this a little odd?
    Answer me this: would you believe anything they reported anyway?

    And does Kev explain why explosions were heard all over the building...I mean, assuming they still were in the Troofer paradigm, which switches targets more often than Oceania during the Two Minutes' Hate...but only the impact site collapsed? And have you watched any more of Screw Loose Change?

  5. #1165
    Caput gerat lupinum GeoffP's Avatar
    Posts
    20,578
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    The following ones:
    The site you're citing has no doubt, seemingly, that an airplane was used. He has parts and eyewitness reports. So why again don't you believe a plane hit the Pentagon?

  6. #1166
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/catastrophicterrorism-foreignaffairs-1198.pdf

  7. #1167
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffP View Post
    I can certainly imagine that that's what it was meant to look like. However, there has been a lot of evidence showing that the planes did minimal damage to the structure. However, as I've already mentioned, there were certain upgrades on most if not all of the floors that initially collapsed. Here is a post detailing this:
    It's really better if you post your own words on this.
    I disagree. But I've decided to link to a different post, one that is specifically focused on the topic at hand:
    http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272

    Without this careful planning, the laws of physics would rule that the building would try to fall in the path of least resistance; that is, into open air instead of onto perfectly solid lower floors.
    And so what? This would matter nothing to the Lizardoid cabal.
    I doubt the 'lizardoid cabal' could break the laws of physics. Thank goodness we have a physics professor like Steven Jones to remind us of these laws.
    Hehe. No, your point was more that they used careful planning to avoid the building falling sideways, not that Captain Controlled Demolition saved physics for all the little Troofers on the 9/11 Day that evil nasty Mr. GrinchBush was going to steal all their placards. The laws of physics would hardly be broken by a sideways fall.
    Placards? And I'll have you know that I left my teens 13 years ago (almost 14 now). Little troofers indeed :-p. Anyway, I believe I've already addressed what you were addressing now.


    Answer me this: would you believe anything they reported anyway?
    If it made sense and they had a good track record of trustworthiness, sure.


    And does Kev explain why explosions were heard all over the building...I mean, assuming they still were in the Troofer paradigm, which switches targets more often than Oceania during the Two Minutes' Hate...but only the impact site collapsed?
    The link I gave above is the best theory I've seen so far. Once again:
    http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272


    And have you watched any more of Screw Loose Change?
    I'm going to try to get the transcript. I find it easier to read erroneous text then watch an erroneous documentary...

  8. #1168
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Granted. However, I wasn't talking about whether the lower floors could withstand the upper floors; I was saying that if the debris could go elsewhere (as in, falling off the sides of the building), it would be following the path of least resistance.
    You forget that some of the debris did fall off to the side. The reason they did fall off to the side is mostly due to the fact that the tower was not collapsing at free fall speed. So this could be legitimately called the path of least resistance. However, most of the debris was directly falling over the top of the footprint, and each floor could not deal with the excessive loads and damage that was pounding down from above.

    The speed at which they fell also makes it clear that it was a controlled demolition
    Even though it looked and sounded nothing like a regular controlled demolition?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKxl6H-iJxM

    Remember also the 10 story apartment that collapsed due to fire? Remember how it collapsed at almost free fall speed? Was that an inside job too?

    Yes, but we're not talking about comets here. We're talking about a floor or 2 that allegedly collapsed due to fire.
    Well then stop invoking a planet when we are talking of skyscrapers.

    Actually, the floor structure was designed for jets to hit the structure. It has been compared to mosquito mesh; puncture a hole through a section and the part above it doesn't come tumbling down, because of the massive amount of redundancy. Essentially, the WTC towers are some of the least likely buildings to have fallen down due to fire. And no steel framed building has ever completely collapsed due to fire. In the one case I know of where only a partial collapse occured, the fire was many hours long (the madrid tower I believe).
    This is somewhat true, but mostly false. Firstly, it's true that the designers said it was like a mosquito mesh with regard to a plane crash, and this is exactly what happened on 9/11. The towers did not collapse as a result of the plane crashes. It was a contributing factor of course, but ultimately it was the fires that softened the steel. I guess the designers didn't imagine the consequence of fires on the building after a plane had hit it.

    It was precicesly because of the way the WTC was designed that it fell. I don't believe there has ever been a serious fire in a skyscraper that resembled the WTC "tube in a tube" design. Comparing it to the Madrid tower is like comparing chalk and cheese. The Madrid tower had a concrete core and the WTC didn't. The steel around the madrid tower collapsed, the rest of the tower stood largely thanks to the concrete core.

    I've seen that terminology used for buildings that have indeed fallen to the side.
    I have never heard of a pancake collapse being used to describe buildings that fall to the side. The whole point of a pancake collapse is that one floor falls on top of the other all the way to the bottom.

    Anyway, another point to make here is that 9/11 is the only day wherein buildings that allegedly collapsed due to fire alone fell into their own footprint. Previously, the only buildings that had done this had to be planted with explosives very carefully; even with explosives, it's much easier to get a building to fall to a side.
    You are completely wrong on this point. I think you mean to say "skyscraper" instead of "building". I already showed you video of a 10 story apartment building collapsing due to fire, and I'm also aware of other examples of buildings collapsing due to fire.

    But it's true that no skyscraper collapsed due to fire. But serious fires on skyscrapers are very rare. So rare that truthers can only point to a few examples of a serious fire in a skyscraper.

    Steven Jones has this to say about the difficulty in creating a building fall into its own footprint:
    ************************************************** **********
    The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute [favored by the Law of Increasing Entropy]. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first…

    Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it. [Again, consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.]
    ************************************************** **********
    So you think the 'conspirators' wanted to have it collapse into its own footprint to preserve life and other buildings? Hang on a minute... you claim they are demolishing 267 floors of office space whilst thousands of people are still inside the building.

    I was under the impression that most demolitions are of the footprint variety. So I don't get the "only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it" quote.

    In reality, the real difficulty would be demolishing a 110 story building and making it look like it wasn't a controlled demolition. Since demolition companies around the world do not believe it was controlled, truthers are going to explain how it could only have been controlled.

    Why is that?
    Because the floors below gave way before it's momentum could tip it over the side. Thus the path of least resistance was straight down once the floors beneath buckled.

    That may be what NIST would like you to believe, but it's patently false. A steel framed building has never completely collapsed before due to fire alone before or since, regardless of how strong or long the fire raged.
    No, it's not what NIST would like me to believe, it's what the entire civil engineering and also the demolition industry have consensus on. I hold their word infinitely higher than your idiotic ramblings.

    Take a look at this:
    ************************************************** ****
    *Quoting from the Los Alamos report (from a 2006 talk I gave): “The Super-Thermite electric matches… are safer to use because they resist friction, impact, heat… thereby minimizing accidental ignition.

    • “Applications include triggering explosives for demolition”
    ************************************************** ****
    You know, I've already proven that the fires were hot enough to buckle the steel, you have not proven to me that "super-thermite" even exists... let alone that it could be implemented in a practical way to destroy a 110 story building.

    Most is not all. And I think it'd be nice if we could see for ourselves, don't you? Apparently some did at least one over and over, before it was confiscated from them. I'd love to hear what they saw, but first I'd have to find the link where I saw this (so many links).
    One of the videos that did capture what hit the Pentagon revealed an object to the scale and colour of AA Flight 77. We could even make out the tail fin.

    I personally liked this video:
    http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm
    I will return later to shit all over this video.

  9. #1169
    Valued Senior Member Ganymede's Avatar
    Posts
    3,321
    Day after day, week after week, month after month. So I take you didn't get hired?

  10. #1170
    Quote Originally Posted by KennyJC View Post
    You forget that some of the debris did fall off to the side.
    More like exploded to the side:
    ************************************************** **********
    The horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of feet and the pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, provides further evidence for the use of explosives — as well-explained in http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html. (See also, Griffin, 2004, chapter 2.)
    ************************************************** **********

    http://physics911.net/stevenjones

  11. #1171
    Quote Originally Posted by KennyJC View Post
    You know, I've already proven that the fires were hot enough to buckle the steel
    No you haven't.


    you have not proven to me that "super-thermite" even exists...
    http://www.navysbir.com/n08_1/N081-020.htm

    http://www.instructables.com/id/Supe...e-TH3-granade/

    http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...mes/read/89059

    http://visibility911.com/blog/?cat=302

  12. #1172
    Quote Originally Posted by Ganymede View Post
    Day after day, week after week, month after month. So I take you didn't get hired?
    Yep, I did. I start tomorrow.

    Not that it will prevent me still coming on and debunking your lies.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    More like exploded to the side:
    ************************************************** **********
    The horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of feet and the pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, provides further evidence for the use of explosives — as well-explained in http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html. (See also, Griffin, 2004, chapter 2.)
    ************************************************** **********

    http://physics911.net/stevenjones
    I think you are thinking of the aluminium coating of the steel perimeter columns. These are the things which were seen flying through the air for hundreds of feet, because they are a light weight material. The collapse would have forced them outwards as would have been carried to some extent by the wind.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    No you haven't.
    I have. In office fires, I showed how the temperature of steel can almost reach the temperature of the fires. You simply had nothing to say about it.

    The latter url describes a regular thermate mixture. The former doesn't tell me much about how it could destroy a 110 tower. Can you yet show me any kind of thermite/thermate/superthermite which can cut through a thick steel beam remotely and horizontally yet?

    Why won't Steven Jones carry out a simple experiment like this?

    These last two urls are troofer ramblings. Therefore I can not take it seriously.

  13. #1173
    Quote Originally Posted by KennyJC View Post
    Originally Posted by scott3x
    More like exploded to the side:
    **************************************************
    The horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of feet and the pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, provides further evidence for the use of explosives — as well-explained in http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html. (See also, Griffin, 2004, chapter 2.)
    **************************************************

    http://physics911.net/stevenjones
    I think you are thinking of the aluminium coating of the steel perimeter columns. These are the things which were seen flying through the air for hundreds of feet, because they are a light weight material. The collapse would have forced them outwards as would have been carried to some extent by the wind.
    Cute theory, but I think you should take a look at the 9/11 mysteries film. Particularly these minutes:
    ************************************************** ***
    20:31 Now let’s look at the collapse of the Twin Towers:
    20:44 We are seeing explosions, rather than implosions -- a first in demolition history. A
    sequenced rumble becomes a roar as debris is thrown outward:
    20:59 The damage is not contained. Even the windows are blown from neighborhood
    buildings.
    21:07 What kind of energy enabled this? Would fire hurl metal and concrete sideways into the
    air?
    21:15 Here, a 600,000-pound chunk of steel (twice the weight of a Boeing airliner) was flung
    400 feet, wedging itself deep into Three World Financial Center on Vesey Street.

    21:31 A FEMA photographer taking pictures of Ground Zero wondered why so MANY steel beams were jutting from neighborhood buildings. What shot pieces of the towers all the way across the street?
    ************************************************** ***

  14. #1174
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Debris being ejected out the sides while the building is collapsing isn't something you see in a controlled demolition is it? Clearly it wasn't a perfect, demolition style collapse was it?

    Instead of acknowledging that the collapse did not resemble a controlled demolition the conspiracy theorist will just add this to the list of silly theories.

  15. #1175
    Caput gerat lupinum GeoffP's Avatar
    Posts
    20,578
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    More like exploded to the side:
    ************************************************** **********
    The horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of feet and the pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder,******************************************* *****************
    A collapse flinging steel does not demonstrate explosion. What happens when you bend a card and let one end slip? I have a friend who works in geomorphology. He tells me that collapsing slopes pulverize rock into dust all the time. Not a big shocker that a falling building would do the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by KennyJC View Post
    Yep, I did. I start tomorrow.
    Hey, congratulations! Nice.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Cute theory, but I think you should take a look at the 9/11 mysteries film. Particularly these minutes:
    ************************************************** ***
    20:31 Now let’s look at the collapse of the Twin Towers:
    20:44 We are seeing explosions, rather than implosions -- a first in demolition history. A
    sequenced rumble becomes a roar as debris is thrown outward:
    20:59 The damage is not contained. Even the windows are blown from neighborhood
    buildings.
    21:07 What kind of energy enabled this? Would fire hurl metal and concrete sideways into the
    air?
    21:15 Here, a 600,000-pound chunk of steel (twice the weight of a Boeing airliner) was flung
    400 feet, wedging itself deep into Three World Financial Center on Vesey Street.

    21:31 A FEMA photographer taking pictures of Ground Zero wondered why so MANY steel beams were jutting from neighborhood buildings. What shot pieces of the towers all the way across the street?
    ************************************************** ***
    See card point above.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Placards? And I'll have you know that I left my teens 13 years ago (almost 14 now). Little troofers indeed :-p. Anyway, I believe I've already addressed what you were addressing now.
    I'm sorry, but no.

    If it made sense and they had a good track record of trustworthiness, sure.
    Well, your comparison is against a crowd for whom the story keeps changing. It's bombs on planes, it's not bombs on planes, it's thermite, it's no plane at the Pentagon, it's a hologram (!?), it's aliens, I saw Elvis' face in the smoke.

    The link I gave above is the best theory I've seen so far. Once again:
    No. You cannot simply info-bomb the thread. You need to post cohesive thoughts and cite them.

    I'm going to try to get the transcript. I find it easier to read erroneous text then watch an erroneous documentary...
    You should watch the film instead. It addresses each Change claim in turn.

  16. #1176
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffP View Post
    Well, your comparison is against a crowd for whom the story keeps changing. It's bombs on planes, it's not bombs on planes, it's thermite, it's no plane at the Pentagon, it's a hologram (!?), it's aliens, I saw Elvis' face in the smoke.
    Many theories have been put forward, but there are some core theories and people who explain them well that have far more strength then others. Nanothermites/Thermate THC 3/Superthermite (it's all the same) seems to be the one the most prominent experts seem to be focusing in terms of the WTC buildings.

    The other one that I believe is fairly strong is the 'no plane at the pentagon'. As to the rest, anyone can come up with a theory, official or unofficial. The real issue is the evidence that backs it.

  17. #1177
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffP View Post
    The link I gave above is the best theory I've seen so far. Once again:
    http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272
    No. You cannot simply info-bomb the thread.
    I'm asking you to read a page of text, complete with some very informative illustrations. You seem to have no problem doing so when the text is mine. I don't understand why it's so hard for you to do when it's someone else's.

  18. #1178
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    The other one that I believe is fairly strong is the 'no plane at the pentagon'
    Based on what? Some vague reference to someone who mentioned four poles being knocked down instead of five?

  19. #1179
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Debris being ejected out the sides while the building is collapsing isn't something you see in a controlled demolition is it? Clearly it wasn't a perfect, demolition style collapse was it?
    It was certainly an unusual demolition. For starters, normal demolitions start from the bottom, as happened in WTC 7, not from the top. But it's not undoable. Other oddities are expressed in 9/11 Mysteries:
    ************************************************** *
    20:31 Now let’s look at the collapse of the Twin Towers:

    20:44 We are seeing explosions, rather than implosions -- a first in demolition history. A sequenced rumble becomes a roar as debris is thrown outward:

    20:59 The damage is not contained. Even the windows are blown from neighborhood buildings.

    21:07 What kind of energy enabled this? Would fire hurl metal and concrete sideways into the air?

    21:15 Here, a 600,000-pound chunk of steel (twice the weight of a Boeing airliner) was flung 400 feet, wedging itself deep into Three World Financial Center on Vesey Street.

    21:31 A FEMA photographer taking pictures of Ground Zero wondered why so MANY steel beams were jutting from neighborhood buildings. What shot pieces of the towers all the
    way across the street?
    ************************************************** *

  20. #1180
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Based on what? Some vague reference to someone who mentioned four poles being knocked down instead of five?
    Based on films like this:
    http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm

    And ofcourse, this:
    http://www.loosechange911.com/finalcut/

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
  •