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. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    If you like, you can call people who question the official story Truth Seekers. However, I have at times avoided doing this, for one reason:
    I would like to believe that atleast some if not most of the official story believers are -also- seeking the truth. The fact that someone is wrong doesn't mean they don't want to know the truth.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Undoubtedly there were temperatures over 250C so only the dishonest or poorly informed would keep pointing to the steel samples in the NIST report as evidence for a conspiracy. It has been fairly conclusively proven that such a fire could easily get the temperature over 500C. There have been several fire tests quoted to you where the temperature was up near 1000C.

    The temperature needed to evaporate steel is rediculously high. If there were temperatures that high then there would have been some evidence. However there isn’t evidence that the temperatures went much over 1000C.

    Once again, explosives explode. They shatter and break things with force. They don’t just heat up steel.


    I think you mean strain credibility, anyway we know what happened to Ryan and Jones. The reality is that when you do stupid things that compromise the reputation of an organization there is often repercussions. The fate of the others is speculation on your part.

    Are they in danger? No has assassinated Jones have they? You are in a fantasy land.

    A lot of disgruntled ex employees deny the accusations that lead to their employment termination.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    That's okay scott but I think the real situation here is that you cannot defend the position you have chosen to take. It's a matter of faith not evidence.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I checked out the definition of faith on wikipedia; I really liked the first sentence at any rate. It is this:
    "Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea."

    I thought, why not extend it to the trustworthiness of a theory, a person, a group of people? I can't think of any other word that comes close to these types of concepts. I find this ironic because I used to have a rather lousy view of faith in general.

    You must realize one thing, however: while I may believe certain individuals, I -also- wish to hear from the other side. If I simply wanted to believe in the alternate theory and dismiss everyone who believed in the official story, I wouldn't be here; I'd be solely in the alternate theory forums discussing the finer points of the theory.

    I'm not, however, because I don't think it makes that much sense to discuss the finer points when many people don't even believe in the basic premises of the mainstream alternate theories. I believe that, without a doubt, official story believers are hands down the best at pointing out the weaknesses of the alternate theories. I also think that alternate theorists are the best people to point out the weaknesses in the official story.

    Anyway, I've created a partial response to your previous response to me here:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2080501&postcount=2138
     
  8. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    You sure about that? I mean, ofcourse there were temperatures above 250C; as early as November 2001, there was evidence of -evaporated- steel; since steel evaporates at around 2860C, clearly steel had gotten -much- hotter then 250C. And yet in Frank Gayle's report, he apparently dismissed any sample that had evidence of reaching temperatures above 250C. So tell me then, why did he dismiss all evidence of any steel sample evidence that was above 250C? After looking at Frank Gayle's report, I believe I see the answer:
    *********************************
    Fire model
    •Detailed comparison with paint results underway•Model predicts temperature in Plate 3 (inner web) to be
    maximum of 200-350 °C when fire proofing (1 3/16”) intact; Spandrels, with 0.5”fire proofing, maximum 450 °C
    *********************************
    http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf

    So, if fire proofing was intact, the 'inner web' shouldn't have gotten much higher then 250C, 100C more at the most, with some spandrels getting up to 450. Temperatures of 3000C+ simply wouldn't have fit in with that model.


    Not sure what tests you were talking of. NIST believes that the -air- might have been heated to 1000C, but not the steel itself.
    Steven Jones puts it well in the following quote:
    ******************************************
    "At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500C or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis added.)
    ******************************************
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf


    For office fires, yes, but not for a thermate induced demolition. Surely you realize that if evaporated steel were truly found, it would be fatal to the official story?


    There was, as I have already mentioned; the fact that NIST didn't include it in their report should be something you should consider deeply.


    Exactly:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Aside from the fact that planting charges to go off, which would have to include embedding them into the structure and being synced to go off at the right time, the images and the video's dont look like a controlled demolition. But of course the most compelling argument against this is the physical impossibility of doing this entirely undetected.

    Insisting on this, in spite of overwhelming evidence against it just makes the person look ignorant and also very annoying. Your only redeeming quality here is that you are somewhat personable but in real life i am sure you are a major pain in the ass.

    And really, no one arguing against this stupidity has a personal stake in this aside from the fact that you are insisting on something that is just not physically possible or the theory itself does not have a modicum of intelligence to associate it with. Therefore you are an anti-intellectual.
     
  10. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    They do according to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth web site. Their reasoning can be seen on their home page, on the right hand side:
    http://www.ae911truth.org/


    Who said they went 'entirely undetected'? There is definitely evidence suggesting that people went into the building for just such a purpose:
    http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/april2004/042304explosivesplaced.htm
     
  11. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    And there you go with the links. You are not revealing anything new to me with these links. All you really do is post links. Maybe you are just a spammer.
     
  12. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Frankly, i am done with you and this thread.
     
  13. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Okay you guys i didn't say black holes to exaggerate, or make fun of (but this is kinda a by product) his cdlaim of 5 stories disappearing. What i meant by it is that the only thing that would do it is a black hole, and that is impossible. I meant for it to be understood that no explosive could do it.

    I meant that he is right that a plane cannot remove 5 stories instantaneously, nor could any sort of explosive. But since we know that those 5 stories were not instantaneously gone in one second we can all assume that none of the above happened.


    Also once more, the pilots would have had to aimed at exactly the right spot on the world trade center in order for the explosives to look as concealed as possible. Quite frankly by the time they can get within range to count the levels, they would have 1/4-1/8 of a second to change the planes angle.
     
  14. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Also you guys i have to make an honest point in Scoth's favor, as much as i hate it but it must be considered. Several years ago a supposedly bomb proof reinforced building somewhere in Europe was demolished by an explosive filled truck. Yet it was not the steel reinforcing that failed. The explosive shockwave was so massive that it lifted up and cracked the solid ceilings and floors, and they tumbled down and the building fell. So theoretically a large enough explosion could do this in the world trade center where instead of blowing up the steel it just cracked the floor and shattered it enough to cause it to fail.
     
  15. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    Physics is not about consensus or degrees but often there are easier and more difficult ways to solve a problem.

    Grade school kids should be able to understand that skyscrapers must hold themselves up and more steel would be required to hold more weight farther down. I emailed Richard Gage in June of 2007 about Frank Greening, explaining the childish error in his paper about potential energy. He had divided the total mass of the building by 110. That would mean an equal distribution of mass and the building had 6 basement levels so he should have divided by 116 anyway. So his calculations for potential energy would put too much mass high up in the building so his calculations had to be far off the mark.

    AE911 should be emphasizing the need to know the distribution of mass and explain why that should make the collapse impossible. It would also make the NIST look really stupid for not bringing up the obvious.

    psik
     
  16. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Theres a huge problem with the thermate theory. Thermate would have to cut through steel bars horizantally. Now does anyone here know why this is an enormous problem?

    Ill give you a hint, gravity.
     
  17. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    Details of Thermite Demolition Charges have been brought up constantly!
    Why do people keep bringing up the bogus "thermite lateral cuts are impossible" argument?
    It's as though acknowledgement of thermite demolition devices will destroy their reality paradigm.
     
  18. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Thermate is not thermite. From Steven Jones' "What is the Goal in the 9/11 Truth Community? Debates, or Justice?" article:
    ********************************

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Above: In a fraction of a second, thermate cuts horizontally through a steel cup. Notice the high-temperature corrosion which occurred.
    ********************************

    The main thrust of the article is actually on asking 9/11 ASBers (Alternate Story Believers) to let go of theories that have a low likelihood of being true. He puts it in the form of a question that he then answers:
    ******************************
    How do we determine if ray-beams from space or mini-nuclear bombs were responsible for bringing down the WTC Towers? How do we know whether jets actually hit the Towers?

    While it is admittedly exciting to come up with fascinating new theories about 9/11, if we wish to bring the perpetrators of the horrific 9/11 crimes to justice, we have to exert discretion and discipline by ferreting out those ideas repudiated by the physical evidence. We should consider these ideas, yes, but we do not need to endlessly debate all such issues. We can move on and focus on the solid forensic evidence which lends a hope of attracting the involvement of a criminal prosecutor and of holding up in court or before Congress.

    As scientists, we look at the evidence, perform experiments, and apply the Scientific Method...

    ******************************
    http://stj911.org/jones/focus_on_goal.html


    I quote the above even though I'm still not completely sure that mini nukes couldn't have been involved. However, I acknowledge that he's done more research then myself and perhaps has seen evidence that conclusively refutes this possibility. Most importantly, there is plenty of evidence that most ABSers agree on, such as the controlled demolition theory. I think we can work out exactly what explosives were used -after- the battle is won to have a serious government sponsored investigation on the possibility of explosives being used on the WTC buildings.
     
  19. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    From what I remember, MacGyver wanted proof that the patent could actually do what it claimed; I think the picture I displayed in the post below yours does this nicely in terms of the 'horizontal cutting' at any rate. As to fedr, he may not have seen that discussion.

    Perhaps it's hopeless to once again ask the powers that be that a conspiracy sub forum be created. If we had that, we would be able to cut up the 9/11 thread without making 9/11 discussions overshadow other topics in this forum. This, in turn, would make it -much- easier to go through a given thread, instead of going through this 'mighty tangle' of all the various 9/11 theories. Stryder seems to have this idea that "there can be only one!" as if the pentagon flyover theory could be melded with the controlled demolition theory of the WTC buildings, the theories concerning the various aircraft used in the attacks on 9/11 and others.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2008
  20. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Actually, it isn't. In that post, however, the bottom line is, why repeat what I've said before? If you want to hear the arguments I believe in, go to those sites. If you don't, don't.
     
  21. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I personally don't find it necessary although it certainly would be nice to have such information; if it would convince one more person that a controlled demolition took place, it would have been worthwhile to find out.

    I personally believe that when it comes to the architects of the 9/11 reports, it's not that they were stupid; far from it. It's more that they were cunning. They figured that -most- americans would find it very hard to see that they were lying so long as they could woo them with reports in the thousands of pages. And so it was.

    In a way, time is not on their side. All it takes is an open mind and a certain amount of time to see how lacking their arguments are. On the other hand, some people have now gotten to the point where they simply don't care who was responsible. The world has moved on, they say. To them, I will repeat the old adage:
    "Those who forget [or never know] history
    are bound to repeat it"

    This is something I fervently want to avoid, and it's why I've spent so much time trying to persuade others as to what truly happened on 9/11.
     
  22. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    It tended to eject the steel, although it apparently evaporated some as well. Here's what Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth had to say:
    ******************************************

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions: (and some non-standard characteristics)

    1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”
    2. Sounds of explosions and flashes of light witnessed near the beginning of the "collapse" by over 100 first responders
    3. "Squibs", or focused explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos
    4. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust
    5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
    6. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
    7. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
    8. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint
    9. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
    10. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 4 - 20 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
    11. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure
    12. Tons of molten metal found by FDNY and numerous other experts under all 3 high-rises
    13. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
    14. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
    15. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings

    And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
    1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
    2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
    3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
    4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.
    ******************************************

    http://www.ae911truth.org/
     
  23. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    Sci-fi Physics

    But engineering schools still have to teach physics. That is what I don't get about the so called Truth Movement. Why stand on the street trying to convince regular people? Why not embarass the engineering schools in front of their students that scored in the top 5% on the SAT?

    I have to wonder what those kids think of this stuff. Ever heard about the MIT students and Ringworld in 1971?

    psik
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page