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

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Stryder, Aug 3, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    There isn’t a list NASA employees who think they did go to the moon, there isn’t a list of astronomers who think we aren’t being visited by aliens….

    There is however a list of peer reviewed papers by engineers. What do the troothers have? An environmental journal and a little known engineering journal which required only money to get published.

    With your comment regarding steel being stronger than concrete you fail to recognize that steel will be affected by fire long before concrete will.



    What are you talking about? In this context ‘peer’ is the scientific community. The process is one well known by those in the scientific field yet after seven years the troothers avoid it because their evidence will not stand up to the scrutiny.



    Irrelevant rambling. I will just reiterate my point. That you keep pointing to his cold fusion journals shows that you don’t know what is going on. It is a desperate appeal to authority.



    It’s a pathetic and irrelvant question. I’m not a scientist writing papers about jebus visiting the Americas or conspiracy theories. He is.



    Your stupidity has no limits. You seem to be under the impression that because someone has been published they are never incorrect on anything for the rest of their life. That is absolutely foolish.


    But these people have been published. By you’re your brilliant logic they cannot be questioned! Have you had work published in a science journal? So how can you just know that it is fallacy rich? Blind faith.


    I pointed out the stupidity of it the first time.


    I’m sure you would like that. I will keep pointing out your mistakes for a while longer.




    Keep dodging and weaving.


    I’m not sure about that but it is irrelevant as the aluminum at WTC would have probably had other materials in it.



    Only to the gullible who see what they want to see.


    As pointed out there were steel columns which were so soft that they were described like licorice. Clearly the temperatures did go over 450C.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    Another common sense argument..

    This is election season...if there was any real and clear evidence that George II had any part in this..the media would on this like stink on shit. But that hasn't happened..why? No one can buy out all the media..including all the blogs...why isn't there more outrage? The reason why is the story is ridiculous.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    There has been no crash anything like what happened on 9/11. A smaller, lighter, slower plane hit the empire state building.



    Their hoses couldn’t reach the fire so yes they were out of reach.

    He is talking about WTC7.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    Yeah wind explosives. .. Don’t you think there would be compressed air as the building pancaked?

    Mainstream alernative?

    No you have no intention of seeing anything that may accidentally debunk the story. You only want to see one side.


    Which doesn’t change the fact that there were no evidence for explosives.

    Actually I didn’t have you in mind when I wrote that.

    The intelligent, well informed will not believe the conspiracy in ten years or one hundred years.

    You are accusing them of making it obvious, not me. You seem to think they would execute such a ridiculous, needlessly complicated super conspiracy plan and yet leave clues that theologians could pick up on…

    wow
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    Just because some idiot described the steel as licorice doesn't mean he had the slightest bit of evidence to support the statement. 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.

    Search the NCSTAR1 report. Specify any evidence for the fire being over 600 deg C. How can 600 deg C turn steel into licorice in less than 2 hours?

    psik
     
  8. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
  9. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Despite the gag order, a bunch of firefighters did speak up; take a look:
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html


    I also think that your view of reality regarding 9/11 is skewed, but I strongly believe that how we view reality is based on all our life's experiences. If you believe that elements of the government could never do the types of things that occurred on 9/11, it would be very hard to persuade you otherwise.
     
  10. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    i know i didnt see any charges going off. that video is the best proof that no bombs were planted.

    belief has no place in an investigation and that is why no one pays you to investigate these things.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2008
  11. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    you don't see any flashes of light at 0:45 - 0:50 ??
    http://www.veoh.com/videos/v16415132HnA38zEp
     
  12. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    Are we supposed to BELIEVE that an investigation of top down gravitational collapses of buildings 1360 feet tall can be done competently without knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the buildings?

    The buildings could not even be constructed without that having been figured out before they dug the holes for the foundations.

    So why don't we have it after SEVEN YEARS and why isn't everyone demanding it?

    psik
     
  13. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    I have no idea what you are talking about. I cannot even decipher it.
     
  14. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Those are very small reflections plus they look enhanced in post production. Regardless, when a skyscraper unintentionally collapses there will be explosions so i dont see what the fascination is.
     
  15. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    plus...that is AFTER the collapse has begun, charges would need to go off BEFORE the collapse starts to be effective.
     
  16. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Kevin Ryan is a respected alternate theory source. shaman hasn't even -named- his source on JREF. In any case, there's plenty of evidence that nano thermites are super explosives, much more powerful then normal explosives. Take this government pdf, for example:
    http://aps-ca.lbl.gov/2007/session2B/aps2B1winterberg.pdf
     
  17. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    How do you know what caused the flashes?
    "those are" - are you relying on science here or are you relying on your belief?
    why do you think they are small? the viewer is half mile away and they are visible with all that dust obscuring the view. why do they only occur in the part of the tower that it is still standing?
    reflections from what exactly? what in the towers core was capable of producing reflections through the thick dust cloud to be viewable half mile away? whenpeople caught in the dust cloud could not see their hand in front of their face!
    what do you mean "enhanced in post production" - they are seen in other videos, is all visual evidence to be disgarded now because it doesn't fit your belief?
    There are other flashes that show smoke emanating from the point of the flash, how are you going to explain that away?

    only in your imagination. what an absurdity! how many unintentional skyscraper collapses have you seen? you are just making it up to fit YOUR belief!
     
  18. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Kevin made it clear that the fires were incapable of doing that; he never said that explosives were incapable of doing it.


    Only in NIST's tweaked model.


    I and many others.


    No, just exploded.
     
  19. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    the towers were three times higher than most big skyscrapers. they were designed like 3 skyscrapers on top of each other. watch any demolition, you will see they charges go off in seperate distinct stages.

    it is ridiculous to assert that all charges have to go off at the same instant.
     
  20. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    you obviously do not have an analytical mind or the sophistication to understand things that go beyond the very basic.

    you call yourself headspin but you are really headgame or maybe even headcase.
     
  21. voyager Registered Member

    Messages:
    65
    they can do some pretty amazing things with video editing software ay?
     
  22. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    pretty much, and they sure look enhanced but either way those small reflections would not amount to anything.
     
  23. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    More then 520 Architects and Engineers quetion or downright disagree with your view. You may want to take a look at their reasoning:
    http://www.ae911truth.org/ (it's on the right hand side of the page).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page