View Poll Results: How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

Voters
51. This poll is closed
  • Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

    22 43.14%
  • Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

    0 0%
  • Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

    10 19.61%
  • Allah!

    2 3.92%
  • People keep flogging a dead horse!

    17 33.33%

Thread: WTC Collapses

  1. #1381
    Quote Originally Posted by leeray666 View Post
    I see nothing of the sort with regards to the 'official story'. When I see the 'official story' being challenged, I only ever see authoritarian aggression, appeals to authority, lies, and simple brushing aside of any evidence which works contrary to the 'official story'.
    where have i used any of these tactics leeray?
    post the links.

  2. #1382
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    where have i used any of these tactics leeray?
    post the links.

    For a start I can't post links. Not yet anyway. Also, I have not stated that you or anyone in particular have done all or any of the things mentioned above. I was generalising.

    However, I have had a quick look through some of the previous posts and there is a certain 'take my word for it' attitude that you display.

    For example, Tony would say that there is enough evidence to rule out the Aeroplane and the fire being the cause of collapse, and he has produced links to how he came to this conclusion earlier in the thread.
    Whereas you say that you can rule out bombs. On what grounds? Your say-so?

    Let's see your evidence. Convince me. Please.

    And by the way, they're not tactics. They tend to be reactions.
    Last edited by leeray666; 01-23-09 at 09:49 AM.

  3. #1383
    Quote Originally Posted by leeray666 View Post
    Let's see your evidence. Convince me. Please.
    the only one that can convince you is you, yourself.
    the evidence is out there.

  4. #1384
    Does that apply to the question of whether God exists?

    Show your evidence. Why are you so scared?

  5. #1385
    Quote Originally Posted by leeray666 View Post
    Does that apply to the question of whether God exists?
    yes, and to WTC.

    Show your evidence. Why are you so scared?
    i explained my motives earlier, don't ask me again.

  6. #1386
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    yes, and to WTC.
    so ultimately, what happened to the wtc is a question of religious faith for you....I see.

    i explained my motives earlier, don't ask me again.
    but you are wrong. Nanothermite was specified as a possibilty in Jones first publications in December 2005.

    Much as you like to believe that nanothermite was put forward as a reaction to your own personal remarks regarding the problems with macro thermite, it has always been ruled-in from the start. you 're just wrong on this, believe it!

  7. #1387
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    so ultimately, what happened to the wtc is a question of religious faith for you....I see.
    stop putting words in my mouth headspin.

    but you are wrong. Nanothermite was specified as a possibilty in Jones first publications in December 2005.
    steve jones was involved with 9/11 as soon as the dust settled.
    nanothermite wasn't even mentioned then.

    Much as you like to believe that nanothermite was put forward as a reaction to your own personal remarks regarding the problems with macro thermite, it has always been ruled-in from the start. you 're just wrong on this, believe it!
    see above

  8. #1388
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    stop putting words in my mouth headspin.
    its a logical conclusion reading what you wrote, nobody is stopping you putting forward the evidence you personally find compelling.

    steve jones was involved with 9/11 as soon as the dust settled.
    nanothermite wasn't even mentioned then.
    You are wrong.
    December 2005 is when Steven Jones came on the scene.

    see above
    see above.

  9. #1389
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    You are wrong.
    December 2005 is when Steven Jones came on the scene.
    i stand corrected.

  10. #1390
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    929
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    i stand corrected.
    But unrepentent.

    What does it say about your thinking that you would say this:
    steve jones was involved with 9/11 as soon as the dust settled.
    nanothermite wasn't even mentioned then.
    Something that would be so easy to check. I don't pay attention to Jones but even I know he didn't show up until years later, though I could not have specified a date.

    Have you found the concrete in the NCSTAR1 report yet?

    psik

  11. #1391
    The official story's lethal paper, Round 2

    This post is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s post 882 in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Headspin may not have the time, but I have a bit. I found a particularly amusing link which was a link within the first link you mention in post 185, (wouldn't open, JREF can be real slow sometimes):

    Jones thinks vehicles around WTC site may have been set afire by "thermite dust." As opposed to, you know, paper.

    Must be some pretty lethal 'paper' ...

    http://www.streetlife.org/images/wtc/wrecked_car.jpg
    So was that done by the thermite that burns, cuts or explodes? Was is nanothermite, superthermite, thermite, thermate, or just bombs?
    I'd say it was done by some type of thermite, probably thermate, but perhaps Headspin could weigh in as well.
    You didn’t answer my question.
    Thermite sounds like a good bet, but I'm not sure, which is why I referred it on to Headspin. Apparently he didn't see it or see fit to respond to it though. Perhaps this time around...


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    The point is that paper is an unlikely candidate for having caused it, to put it mildly.
    You may certainly be right. So the only two possibilities are paper and supermegathermite. Truther logic right?
    I haven't heard any other possibilities offered, by either side. Mine would atleast fit in with a lot of other evidence pointing to the use of thermite/thermate. Feel free to offer a different possibility if you have any.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    As Tony Szamboti has made clear, the bowing was probably due to the thermite, not the fires. It looks like thermite played even more of a role than I'd previously known.
    What about the softened steel? Astaneh compared it to licorice.
    Sure, if you're thinking of the type of 'softening' that a few well placed missiles can accomplish . I think a more accurate description would be 'explosively bent' steel...

  12. #1392
    Kevin Ryan's expertise and UL's and NIST's tests of -real- steel

    This post is in response to the 5th and final part of shaman_'s post 882 in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    I would argue that he is an authority on the WTC steel and the WTC steel assemblies in particular. He was a manager within the company that certified it
    He did not work in the area that certified the assemblies. He worked with water. Just working at the same company doesn’t make him an expert!
    I agree. However, you continue to ignore the fact that he did much more then work with water. He details his research during his time working at Underwriter Laboratories, as well as after. You may want to read about it in his article "Propping up the War on Terror", starting at his sub heading "NIST and Underwriters Laboratories". I'll even give you the intro in the hopes that you will read further:
    In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."15



    He is not an authority on steel, buildings and fires. It was not his area of expertise.
    I agree that before 9/11 he was indeed not an expert on the WTC steel. This changed, however, when he realized that the company wherein he was a manager was deeply involved in certifying the quality of the steel floor assemblies within the WTC buildings; at that point, he began to seriously research the issue and question the relevant people in Underwriter Laboratories concerning this issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    and he not only had access to the people who would know most about those steel assemblies; he also asked them about it and got atleast one quite remarkable response, as Kevin Ryan writes in his article Three Years Later: Another Look At Three Claims from UL:
    *******************
    UL’s CEO, Loring Knoblauch, made verbal statements to all staff at UL in South Bend on or about September 27, 2001. These statements included reference to UL having “certified the steel used in the World Trade Center” and that, because of this, employees should be proud of how long the buildings stood.

    After being later asked for formal confirmation of such tests, Knoblauch repeated his statements again, this time in writing.[10]

    “We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on, and it did beautifully.”
    *******************

    The whole issue is a deep embarassment, to put it mildly, for Underwriter Laboratories, who has vainly tried to disassociate itself from ever having tested the WTC steel as the above article makes clear.
    As I have pointed out to you a couple of times, UL certified assemblies with fireproofing, as stated in that quote. Once an assembly has been damaged and the fireproofing removed that rating is no longer relevant. Understand? So no, it is not an embarrassment for them at all.
    Ratings aside, I have already stated that a test was done with essentially no fireproofing on it. It didn't collapse either. Tony mentions that NIST even did a test with no fireproofing at all; apparently they claimed it wasn't a 'real' test and never revealed the results. If steel with essentially no fireproofing didn't collapse and they decided not to reveal the results with on the 'not really a test' steel with -no- fireproofing at all, I think we can all guess as to why they're not so keen on releasing those results.

  13. #1393
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    Have you found the concrete in the NCSTAR1 report yet?

    psik
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99
    all of the factors needed to compute weight distribution have been published.
    apparently you know nothing about interpolation.
    i will not haggle with you about this any longer.
    ...

  14. #1394
    Evidence speaks for itself

    This post is in response to John99's post 884 in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    God yeah. This is the guy who knows how insurance works
    yeah, and i explained it to you.
    The only thing you explained was your ignorance of how insurance works


    you still dont seem to have a handle on it. I have recommended to you before to get an education and this was not meant to insult you but merely a recommendation. Let us not go down the road of personal insults, weather craftily hidden or not. K?
    I'm not using any of what I believe to be insults that should be censored:
    moron, stupid, idiot, any f word or, (if you were a woman), something that I'd like to refer to as the 'w' word (whore). I don't think these need to be used on anyone. However, I believe that sometimes people are ignorant of certain things and I don't think it's generally a bad idea to point this out.

    I believe my education is certainly adequate to speak of the issues concerning the flaws in the official 9/11 story as well as the evidence pointing towards an inside job. If you find that my credentials are insufficient, you are free to (a) point out where you think they are lacking or (b) decide to ignore me, just as I have the same freedoms when I respond to the posts of others here.

  15. #1395
    NIST's computer models tell an interesting tale...

    This post is in response to Headspin's post 890 in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin
    bump:“ what is the maximum gas temperature in the core just prior to collapse according to NISTs fire simulation? "

    anyone care to argue with some real (albeit simulated) data:

    http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05161.pdf
    can you please excerpt the relevant part? It's 164 pages....
    start on page 63, each temperature distribution is represented in red and blue diagrams. They are time sequenced according to the timeline bars below the diagrams, so the last one of the six diagrams is just prior to collapse. each tower and each floor with fire is provided with six time slices between impact and collapse. what does the blue colors of the core indicates about the temperature of the core at collapse time? the diagrams are there, do not take my word for it.
    Wow. Good work Headspin. For those who want to take a look for themselves, page 63 is page 97 on the sidebar. For those who can't access the pdf or are too lazy to, the temperatures at the core of WTC 1 on floor 92, in what I'm guessing was Case A, were almost always dark blue (100C or less), with only a little bit of green in the top left corner (400-600C); and the fires were getting colder before the building collapsed. According to these diagrams (which I don't trust, since they were done on a tweaked computer model), there were some spots 1000C gas spots, but it moved around, lessening its effect in any particular spot. The south side was apparently never affected at all, while at the time when it was about to collapse, only the northwest side still had some fires going.
    Last edited by scott3x; 01-23-09 at 01:02 PM.

  16. #1396
    scott, headspin, tony, psikeyhachr,
    where are all the investigators that have stated they found unexploded bomb material in the wreckage?
    where are all the investigators that have stated that they were refused access to the debris field?

  17. #1397
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    scott, headspin, tony, psikeyhachr,
    where are all the investigators that have stated they found unexploded bomb material in the wreckage?
    Steven Jones, who has done a fairly thorough investigation of the WTC collapses, has claimed to have found some. I don't believe any other investigator has had both the will and the means to do an investigation to reveal this.


    where are all the investigators that have stated that they were refused access to the debris field?
    I assume that someone has claimed this. I may have heard a bit about it, can't remember. Perhaps one of the other people you mentioned could answer this.

  18. #1398
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    where are all the investigators that have stated they found unexploded bomb material in the wreckage?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iPfi...eature=related
    where are all the investigators that have stated that they were refused access to the debris field?
    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/grou...trictions.html

    ...and the official investigators NIST, are on record stating they did not test for explosives/incendaries despite having access to unusual strange effects on structural steel girders that cannot be easily explained without chemical incendaries:http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

  19. #1399
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Steven Jones, who has done a fairly thorough investigation of the WTC collapses, has claimed to have found some. I don't believe any other investigator has had both the will and the means to do an investigation to reveal this.





    I assume that someone has claimed this. I may have heard a bit about it, can't remember. Perhaps one of the other people you mentioned could answer this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iPfi...eature=related
    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/grou...trictions.html

    ...and the official investigators NIST, are on record stating they did not test for explosives/incendaries despite having access to unusual strange effects on structural steel girders that cannot be easily explained without chemical incendaries:http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf
    listen people, A WITNESS is someone that was THERE.
    steve jones WAS NOT at the debris feild on 9/11.
    this character that headspin alludes to WAS NOT THERE.

    as far as NIST goes, not a single investigator thought about testing for bombs?
    who are you trying to kid?
    furthermore you don't believe NIST when they say something that you don't agree with, now all of a sudden you do???

  20. #1400
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    The official story's lethal paper, Round 2

    This post is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s post 882 in this thread.

    Thermite sounds like a good bet, but I'm not sure, which is why I referred it on to Headspin. Apparently he didn't see it or see fit to respond to it though. Perhaps this time around...
    the explanation of "burning paper" seems to be just another example of implausible conjured speculation. I do not see how burning bits of paper can cause the uniform "corrosion" of so many vehicles in the vicinity in such a consitent manner.

    Thermitic material could explain the effects seen on the cars.

    . vehicles suffered what appeared to be chemical burns on areas only subjected to the dust.
    . some vehicles caught in the dust appeared to spontaneoulsy catch fire.
    . a witness caught in the hot dust cloud reported the dust burnt into their skin and caused a rash. Detritis (thermite microspheres?) oozed from the rash weeks after.

    If the incendary material was aerosolised and crushed to particulate within the dust, then the dust may have had a hot corrosive effect close to the collapse area.

Similar Threads

  1. By Stryder in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 01-21-09, 01:23 AM
    Replies: 2517
  2. By reasonmclucus in forum General Science & Technology
    Last Post: 08-07-07, 12:14 AM
    Replies: 5
  3. By duendy in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 04-19-06, 08:20 AM
    Replies: 381
  4. By Brian Foley in forum World Events
    Last Post: 04-02-06, 05:11 AM
    Replies: 10
  5. By Raven in forum World Events
    Last Post: 01-05-06, 07:27 AM
    Replies: 1

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
  •