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

I take it you've seen the first part of their 'north side flyover' video? I have and I couldn't disagree with you more.

What was -not- contradictory amoung the witnesses they discovered was that they all state that the plane came from the north side of the Citgo gas station, not the south side. Details may be forgotten, but this is no detail and all the new witnesses agree.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yep. the "new witnesses" all agree. $$$

*scott3x twirls hair and snaps his gum*

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1800 deg F is the maximum burn temperature of the jet fuel. It would only occur in a pure oxygen environment or in a engine where the fuel and air are designed to mix in the proper ratios. Fuel must have an oxidizer. The atmosphere is only 20% oxygen. That is why thermite must be finely ground and thoroughly mixed to get high temperatures. It contains its own oxidizer and it needs to be in contact with the fuel.

Tell us where in the NCSTAR1 report they say that temperature occurred during the fire. Not one of their so called summaries or someone else's article. Good luck trying to find it. LOL
_______

A skyscraper must withstand the lateral force of the wind. So the steel must be strong enough to take forces from the sides. The difference between the wind and the plane is that the wind is spread out over the entire surface while the plane will concentrate it in a small area. But the wind can blow for HOURS and can be high for DAYS but the NIST says the south tower stopped the plane in 0.6 SECONDS.

The NIST also says the south tower deflected by 12 inches at the 70th floor even though that was 130 feet below the impact point and the south tower oscillated for FOUR MINUTES. Obviously the base did not move. So the building flexed from impact just as the wind would cause it to do. So a lot of kinetic energy from the plane moved the building rather than did structural damage at the impact point.

That means in order to compute the amount of energy that did do structural damage the energy that deflected the building must be calculated and subtracted for the total kinetic energy of the plane. The NIST admitted this in one place in their 10,000 page report but never did it that I can find. Obviously to compute that energy of deflection the distribution of mass must be known.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

So why don't we have it after SEVEN YEARS?

The nation that put men on the moon can't tell the entire world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of buildings designed before the moon landing? THAT IS HYSTERICALLY FUNNY!

The really curious thing is that I haven't been able to find that kind of information on any skyscraper.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/

psik

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Articles this, articles that. Tell us where the NCSTAR1 report says the fire was over 600 deg C. NOT THE SUMMARIES. If the so called summaries are accurate it should be in the NCSTAR1, right? So where is it? :shrug:

psik

PS - By the way. If you want to pull quotes out of the NCSTAR1 report it can be done with the "Evince" program under Linux. Adobe won't do it. Why they locked a public government report I don't know.

 

I've just talked a bit on the CIT forum:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=433&st=0&#entry2069911

Someone named Ligon there told me that the new witnesses are in fact not new. He also stated:
"As CIT makes clear in The Northside Flyover video presentation and article, the ANC witnesses were interviewed by the Center for Military History (CMH) shortly after 9/11. They were on record as NOC even back then. For example, Darius Prather's CMH interview was just released a few weeks ago, and it confirms that he did indeed attest to seeing the plane fly over the Navy Annex and North of Citgo in 2001. Like the others, his story has been the same since the beginning. This "debunking" point is demonstrably bogus (and so are his other ones)."

 

I have a suspicion ;-).

 

What possible reason could the insiders have for taking control of an aircraft ..just to do a fly over of the pentegon? Doesn't make any sense...when they already used planes earlier at the WTC. and if they did do a flyover...what hit the building?

 

there are so many witnesses that saw the plane hit pentagon that the only conclusion is that scott3x is a nut job.

 

Here's the best answer I've seen so far:
**********************************
Why not just install remote control in four passenger jets like you described in NO SUICIDE PILOTS? Here's why: You might get remote control gear installed on a passenger jet so pretty the pilot would not notice, but that would be more work, more time, and more people. Then you would have to control your special plane through maintenance dispatch and try to get it lined up for that day, that time, that flight. Then you would have to multiply those efforts by four. There would be too many chances of things going wrong. Plane substitution would be much simpler. You'd just need the NORAD insiders, the personnel at the military airfield, and maybe an agent or two inside the FAA air traffic control system to make sure things go smooth. That should not be too difficult because NORAD has sent lots of its people over to the FAA to work on the FAA radars.
**********************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/publicaction_bumble.html

The CIT crew would argue that nothing 'hit' it per se; rather, explosives were planted in it as they were in the twin towers. Bear in mind that opinion on that is not universal. The author of the article I just linked to above thought it was "A small remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile, if you like -- is flown into the first WTC tower. That's the plane the first NBC eyewitness saw."

At present, I'm going with the CIT version. It may well be that "Snake Plissken" (not his real name) simply didn't have enough information at the time (apparently he wrote his emails in early 2002.

 

<snip personal attack>

Apparently only 30 could have seen and/or claimed to have seen the hit.

Here's the list of them compiled by Aldo Marquis, a member of CIT, along with some comments:
******************************
Claims they "Saw" impact of "plane"/large airliner-were in a position to possibly confirm one:
1. Deb Anlauf (CONTACTED by CIT, would not return call)
2. Donald Bouchoux (military consultant. CONTACTED by CIT, spoke with and left message with son, would not return call)
3. Mike Walter (had dinner with CIT)
4. Sean Boger (CONFIRMED the north side, impact deduced we believe)
5. Pam Bradley (unconfirmed account/witness)
6. Hugh "Tim" Timmerman (Dawn Vignola's roomate, unavailable for comment)
7. James R. Cissell
8. Daryl Donley
9. Bobby Eberle (came forward well after the event, Jeff Gannon's boss)
10. Penny Elgas
11. Mary Ann Owens
12. Scott Perry
13. Frank Probst (CONTACTED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
14Noel Sepulveda, Navy Master Sgt. (claims plane lowered landing gear and hit light poles with landing gear)
15. G. T. Stanley (unconfirmed name/witness)
16. Steve Storti
17. Carla Thompson (unconfirmed name/witness)
18. Dave Winslow, AP Radio reporter (CONTACTED by CIT, did not return call)
19. Terrance Kean (Unreachable)
20. Dave Marra (dubious, questionable witness-claims plane cartwheeled into building)
21. Mark Petitt (VERY dubious account)
22. Aziz El Hallou (Debunked lying witness, proven to be at Navy Annex)
223. Robert A Leonard(driving northbound in the HOV lanes on I-395; Pentagon is on the left. The plane vanished, absorbed by the building, and there was a slight pause. Then a huge fireball rose into the sky.")
24. Mitch Mitchell, Ret. Army Col., CBS news correspondent (account is problematic)
25. Mike Dobbs (according to writer, not confirmed, not his own words)
26. Joe Harrington (seems like it made impact before Wedge-in South Parking lot)
27. Rick Renzi (corrupt congressman, listed as law student, has plane "dive bombing", very peculiar account)


"Saw" a plane & impact from far away, but DID NOT see a second plane/jet shadowing/chasing and veering away as the impact happened:
28. Steve Anderson, USA Today Editor (saw impact from USA Today building)
29.Don Wright (a commuter plane, two-engined )
30.Don Chauncey (small commuter plane)
Steve Gerard (saw small corporate jet with no markings) (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
31. Lesley Kelly, Cmdr. U.S. Navy (Ret.) (near impossible to see the plane approach from DC)
32. James Robbins (a national-security analyst & NRO contributor for National Review, William F Buckley (CIA) publication saw silver flash, "diving in an unrecoverable angle")
Ken Ford (prop plane flying up river from National)
33.Christopher Munsey, Navy Times reporter

(30 TOTAL WHO COULD HAVE SEEN OR CLAIM TO HAVE SEEN IMPACT)
******************************
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=10632

 

If a building collapsing can only be due to demolition materials, then I think we should agree that the civil engineering community and the demolition community would unanimously back this up.

They don't.

I've seen video of a 10 story building collapsing at near free story speed due to fire. You've seen it too. This building had everything in common with your bullet points, and yet it was not a demolition.

Bottom line: No BOOMS and still no demonstrated feasibility of thermite being the cause.

Fire is the dominant theory.

How many of them design or build high rise buildings (perferably skyscrapers)? How many of them professionaly demolish high rise buildings?

Secondly, the fact they can not progress beyond their conspiracy website means that their science is baloney.

No thanks. If truthers had demonstrated how thermite could remotely cut a thick steel beam, I would already know about it.

I really don't know how you can make a post like that and not blush.

It was a 767 as shown by countless video and clear pictures. Not a small jet. A FUCKING 767!

You realize posting stuff like this makes everything else you say dismissible purely because you say foolish things like this

I mean what the hell do you gain from saying it wasn't a 767?

 

And there is video of the first plane striking the tower. It was shot by a documentary film maker who was doing a doc on the NYFD. He just happened to be at the right place at the right time with his camera. PBS did a show on his documentary..really fascinating.
I'll look for the video.

And the fact we know it was a large commericial aircraft that hit the second tower, and both holes are practically identical.

No offense Scott...you're really grasping at straws lately. You need to think these things out a little bit, before blindly believing everything they tell you on the CIT website and then parroting it here.

On a positive note...I would like to commend you for shrugging off responses that included personal attacks. That's taking the high road in the debate, and is a step in the right direction in your quest for "critical thinking"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

well then scotch than why did it mention diesel fuel in the first place.

 

Hey scott,

A little while ago you posted a link to a video of a 3-d rendering of the internal architecture of the WTC, it showed the core columns and their cross-sections and compared them to the size of a figure of man. I thought it was informative...well at least until the last few minutes where the author offered his opinion.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I need to learn how the WTC7 was built...y'all got anything like that on the CIT website? some sort of blue print or something of the like?

 

You may find this article educational:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E3DE143DF93AA15752C1A9679C8B63

 

Hey, that opinion was quality stuff ;-).

Sorry, I know of none. However, you may want to read this:
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/NIST_WTC7.html

 

I believe I have heard of that video, and seen a snapshot of the before and after. It mentioned that the 'after' part couldn't have been solely as a result of the plane. I think I posted it recently, but don't want to go link hunting for it right now...

That's the thing, see; the argument being that the aircraft didn't make the holes that big, but explosives.

I -do- think about all of this stuff a whole lot. The main issue is that there is so much to think about. So many facts, so many witnesses. Given this fact, it's easy to occassionaly get something wrong. I would say I'm fairly meticulous in my research and I would also say that I've done a fair amount of it by this point. I find myself repeating many points over and over but it's comforting in a way; retreading old ground is the easy part. The hard part is piecing all the various pieces together. I see 9/11 as an enormous puzzle. Long ago, I realized that the official story didn't add up, but it's one thing to see that a theory doesn't work and another thing entirely to work out one that works seamlessly.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I agree with Barrack Obama on that general approach. I hope he wins tomorrow.

 

You may want to read the following article:
"Where Are the Whistleblowers?"
http://911research.com/sept11/analysis/whistleblowers.html

 

You may want to read this:
***********************************
Explosive thermite? What explosive thermite?

An actual explanation for the sulfidation and extreme thinning of steel has been offered by independent investigators, and is fully consistent with the alternative theory that NIST has avoided all these years. The thermite reaction, available in several useful variations for the purposes of cutting steel, can explain this thinning and sulfidation quite readily.

The thermite hypothesis for the WTC was first detailed by Derrick Grimmer of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE).17 This hypothesis was later expanded into an experimentally supported theory by Professor Steven Jones.18

When asked about thermite in the WTC 7 press conference, Sunder pretended that NIST was not aware of the explosive forms of this chemical mixture, called super-thermite or nano-thermite. Instead, Sunder claimed that thermite could not be applied adequately in order to serve the purpose of a deceptive demolition. Sunder's answer, apart from being vague and unsupported, is also in direct contradiction to the fact that a number of the NIST WTC investigation leaders had expert knowledge of nano-thermites, and that such materials can be sprayed onto surfaces like steel.19

NIST's new report ignores many other important pieces of evidence that support the alternative theory. This evidence includes the many witnesses to explosions, the many people who were warned that the building was coming down, and the prediction, by several major media outlets, that the building was coming down well before it actually did.20

As we see with the explanation that took NIST five years to provide, no one could have possibly predicted anything like it.
***********************************
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080911073516447

 

What makes you so sure?