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
    From what I remember reading somewhere, it was made clear that the towers were built in a much stronger way; stronger then the Windsor tower in Madrid, and most of its structure remained intact, despite the raging fires it experienced.


    You're right; the WTC had -steel- core columns. Guess which one is stronger?


    Only some of the the outer perimeter collapsed. I have also heard that there was evidence that the fire was an arson; and if that was the case, what was used in that arson is anyone's guess...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Putting aside for a moment that a bridge is not the same thing as a WTC floor, what I'm talking about is that the road below it stopped it from falling further, just as the floors below the plane crash would have stopped any floor above it falling into it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    It’s annoying that you post the same things over and over as if they have never been discussed before. It’s as if you think you can overwhelm me with links and somehow that will convince me that I’m wrong. Its frustrating and it makes you seem unreasonable or forgetful.


    What? Where is the molten metal in that video? I saw a firetruck at about 5:00.


    I will repeat, megasuperultrathermite does not burn slowly for weeks. Even if it did the amount required to do so would be ridiculous and certainly noticed. Saying ‘oh but it was buried’ doesn’t solve that problem. If there were hot spots for weeks it has no relevence on the superultrawonderthermite theory.

    Only if you are a gullible conspiracy theorist with an tendency to avoid reason or facts.


    Rife with errors. Do I really need to go through them again?



    I have mentioned several times that he had objections. However you are still being misleading because he made it extremely clear that he considered the conspiracy theories to be nonsense and believes that the fires caused the steel to weaken which led to the collapse.




    We’ve been through that one a few times. You are desperately clinging to testimony like “A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." . If you stopped and actually thought for a second you would see the problem with that sentence. If they are talking about beams then they are not talking about molten metal are they? People clearly see glowing metal and often call it molten metal. You have no credible evidence for molten steel.


    Yeh thanks I’ve seen the quote. Keep spamming…


    Once again, while it is a strange comment there is no other evidence whatsoever to support it. His own team reported no temperatures in that range. Conspiracy theorists are pretty keen to cling onto one testimony, discard all the evidence they don’t like, avoid difficult questions and then make claims like ‘the official story is full of holes’ and 'NIST are dishonest'.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Prove it. While you're attempting to do this, I'd like to point out there are 520 architects and engineers who have serious doubts or openly disagree with the official story here:
    http://www.ae911truth.org/


    Where? In the Oklahoma bombing?


    Even if this were so, it's all the more reason to do more research on the subject as Steven Jones has asked for; as in, government funded research.


    How about we look at a simple experiment to see how much fires would weaken the steel:
    http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/10/can-hydrocarbon-fires-weaken-steel.html
     
  8. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Do you actually believe that the vast majority of structural engineers are behind crackpot Jones? Yes or No?


    Why don’t you take into account the twenty something papers in peer reviewed engineering journals which I posted a link to. I have no doubt you have erased them from your mind as they all supported the official story. What do the conspiracy theorists have? An environmental magazine and an unknown engineering journal which required only a payment for submission. Clearly you don’t have the vast majority of structural engineers behind the conspiracy theory but (1) You are deluded and believe this is so or (2) because no one has bothered to get a list together of the majority of structural engineers you think you have a point, which makes you deluded or childish I’m not sure which.

    You have been shown cases where the steel has weakened due to fire. One was a toilet paper factory! You will of course conveniently ignore these.



    Yes but the conspiracy theorists just know that it must have been used even before it has been shown to be a possibility.



    :roflmao:

    There it is all the proof you need! The thread can be ended !

    Come on Scott you must see how meaningless that demonstration is.
     
  9. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    Did you just say that? Did you?

    Do you realize that concrete is far more fire resistent than steel?

    Is there a difference between Kent Hovind and Steven Jones? Well let's see.. They both speak in pseudoscience and preach to a choir of like-minded folk who don't know anything about science. They do not have the balls to stand up in front of a crowd of informed people who could point out their flaws. They don't make any attempt whatsoever to have their work peer-reviewed like a real scientist would have to do. They both have a dishonest agenda. And so on...
     
  10. voyager Registered Member

    Messages:
    65
    i'm not going to repeat myself for anybody.
    i've presented my evidence and scott has failed to address it, much less disprove it.

    i've asked scott to name the similarities between the collapse of the WTC towers and a controlled demolition and he has failed to do so.
    this implies to me that he can't find any.
     
  11. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Does concrete melt? At what temperature does it lose 50% of its supportive strength?

    Best,

    Geoff
     
  12. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    The kind of people that would do it as a conspiracy like the Us government aren't total morons. They know that jet fuel will burn at 8,000+ degrees and they won't bother with explosives because they simply are not necessary. We are talking about the greatest special forces and explosives units in the world. Every single one of them would say explosives would be too obvious and totally unessecary. We are talking about explosive genius's. There would have been no bombs in the building. More than likely they would've been on the plane because any strange signatures afterwards could be explained by the complete annihalation of any evidence.

    What all people assume is that the kind of techniques used would be as crud as a car bomb. These explosives engineers that would do it would have done something ingenious. just to show how good they are here's an example. An Israeli explosives team of around the same skill level made a cell phone equivalent to the one used by that of an enemy terrrorist leader. On a spec ops mission they replaced the leaders cell phone with that one. When the right number was dialed there was a shaped charge that blasted his head apart.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2008
  13. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028

    Welcome to the discussion V,

    I thank you for you response to my question in the "Transitor Theory" thread. You seem to be pretty knowledgable. We can always use more of those people.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    As for this thread...it's just an exercise in futility.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Afraid so.

    As I said above: the whole thing is about faith. Troofers routinely use statements like "I believe" because that's the truth - they believe. It really wouldn't matter what was debunked. If I proved that evolution was true to Pat Robertson, would he stop believing in God? Of course not. So it's not a scientific issue. It's not about reasonability, or logic, or process. It's about - as even the comments from Scott, inarguably one of the more lukewarm and more reasonable Troofers - belief in something.

    It's unfortunate that it's got to this point. If there'd been something else that could have tickled the old faith button in the human cerebellum, it would probably have been a lot better for society.

    Geoff
     
  15. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Structural engineers who support the troothers certainly are.

    1? Your kidding they must have more than 1.

    I can’t even get into the list of members on their site.

    Just gullible.

    Something you do not appear to have. The comment regarding concrete and steel was a reminder of that.

    No you still don’t get it. If the official story is full of holes and there are all these appropriately qualified people who agree then where are all the peer reviewed documents in relevant journals? Pointing to his articles on cold fusion just shows you don’t comprehend what is going on.

    That is a pathetic attempt to keep up with the argument. I am not releasing documents on the internet (outside the recognised process) like Jones is.

    If you are mesmerised by peer reviewed papers then you must have been impressed by the many peer reviewed papers written by structural engineers which support the theory. No? Didn’t read them? No of course you didn’t. You are interested in the conspiracy theory not the truth.


    Yes uncorroborated reports of glowing metal…..




    You posted that a few days ago. Do you even realise you are just spamming the same nonsense over and over? It just makes it clear that there isn’t any point responding and pointing out the problems because you will just post it again next week.



    If there were temperatures around the melting point of steel, and if there were liquid steel flowing out the side of the building we would see the steel in that area visibly affected. We don’t.


    Even in that video it is glowing orange while being poured. Watch it for yourself. It goes silver once it hits the pan.

    However there were most likely other materials in the aluminium as well.

    Only if you have blinkers on.


    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2062278&postcount=1641

    You are trying to imply that either that NIST report is contradictory or that the temperatures never went over 600, or something I’m not sure what your point is here anymore.


    An office fire started with jet fuel is enough to weaken steel. There have been pervious examples of this so just claiming it can’t happen is meaningless.
     
  16. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Just saw this today...

    I'm certainly not a supporter of the conservative party in the following election, but I saw this a few moments ago:
    "Sarah Palin Supports New 9/11 Investigation "

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/sarah-palin-supports-new-911-investigation.html


    It got me thinking: who else here at the very least supports a new investigation, one that isn't mired by Bush administration appointees and the like?
     
  17. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I can't debate you on the above because I don't have the knowledge in that area. However, I'll quote an authority on the subject, Dr. Ray Griffin, in relation to the WTC fires:
    *********************
    ...the reason to say that the fires were oxygen starved is that black smoke was issuing forth, as even Thomas Eagar and NIST admit (see my discussion of NIST’s “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions” in “Debunking 9/11 Debunking”).
    *********************
    http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-74082.html
     
  18. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    “I do because I think that helps us get to the point of never again, and if anything that we could do could still complete that reminder out there,” the Alaska Governor added.

    Quite clearly, she is talking about the national security failures that allowed the attacks to take place. If she stated any different, i.e. thinking that the US government was involved in staging the attacks, then these comments would make the front page and they lose any chance they had of winning the election.

    I can't believe I just defended that bitch... look what you made me do you fucking truther!!

    haha

    By the way... so far as I'm aware, the 9/11 commission was set up not because of conspiracy theory concerns, but to investigate the failures of national security and so on...
     
  19. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    Scott, you don't need to be an expert in the matter; all you have to have done is been alive for a while. Haven't you ever seen a fire that has given off thick black smoke when it clearly isn't oxygen starved?

    If not, then here is an experiment:

    Take an assortment of plastics and rubber (like a car tyre) and set fire to them. Make sure they are out in the open so that they can't be said to be oxygen starved. Now observe the thick black smoke as the fire burns.
     
  20. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Dr Ray Griffin is not an authority on the subject. He is a theologian. See below.

    The color of the smoke is not an indicator as to a fire being oxygen starved. The example I used previously was the burning oil wells. They are completely out in the open with plenty of oxygen yet they produce thick black smoke. But you ignored the example I gave and just posted more nonsense from one of the 9/11 “experts”. It is the blind leading the blind.
     
  21. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    And they are seriously Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    Why did they wait so long to blow the charges? It would make much more sense to blow them WHEN the planes struck the building, it would cover it up the best. Why wait almost an hour?
     
  23. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Mackey said something similar in his essay "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin's Latest Criticism
    of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation":
    "... [the Madrid skyscraper] experienced a partial collapse of its steel components only escaping total collapse due to its concrete construction.
    p.40
    "

    Jim Hoffman responded thusly:
    "Mackey's unqualified confidence that the Madrid skyscraper would have totally collapsed if it were steel-framed, is in stark contrast to the fact that fire has never caused the collapse of a steel-framed highrise."

    http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page