WTC Collapses

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by scott3x, Nov 14, 2008.

?

How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

  1. Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

    18 vote(s)
    43.9%
  2. Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

    9 vote(s)
    22.0%
  4. Allah!

    2 vote(s)
    4.9%
  5. People keep flogging a dead horse!

    12 vote(s)
    29.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    and of course you still did not answer #1755.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Now consider this:

    The pencil goes halfway through the netting (in this case a 6 foot square) and unloads gallons of flaming jet fuel. Does the netting sustain the damage?

    I would say with complete certainty that the netting is vaporized.

    We can attribute these statements to overconfidence but they are not facts.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Well it's cool that you believe that WTC 7 was indeed a controlled demolition. Given enough time, I think you would come to believe as I do, that the twin towers were also taken down by controlled demolitions.


    I disagree. I think that it -does- matter. I think that if enough people believe that 9/11 was an inside job that the powers that be will -have- to pay attention. But not before. Which is why I have tried and continue to try so hard to get people to see the truth.


    I don't think the solution is to wait until they do it again to catch them. I think the solution is to try to get people to realize what they did this time around, so that it doesn't happen again at all.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    You cant tell by looking at it that it was a controlled demo and the collapse videos dont even support this. In an intentional demo explosives would have needed to been place along the outer perimeter supports and on every floor as visible from the consistent failure or at the official and as has happened before pancake scenario at the joists. Yours is a laymans assessment and the hundreds of investigators dont agree. Plus there is no proof of explosives. The explosive placement and being undetected is impossible for obvious reasons.

    As far as WTC7- what would be the purpose or advantage to bringing down wtc7 intentionally? there is none.

    And what would people reading this do? You need to tell the FBI or the Canadian authorities because no one here can do anything about your 'intuition' or 'feelings' about this.

    The people who were responsible dont deny it and if they changed their mind after being captured this is common. Have you spoken to them?
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
  8. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    I did remove it, however someone replace it with "woo woo" (The original was "woo-woo"). It's been removed again.
     
  9. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Oh come on, 'beam up'? I'm sure psikeyhackr will -definitely- not like that one

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . I think the same would apply for Headspin and Tony; still, definitely better then 'woo woo'

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Anyway, aren't admins/mods the only ones who can put tags in after a thread has started? Because if that's so and you didn't do it...
     
  10. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
  11. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Most people get lost when it comes to math and physics. It's not exactly the forte of the average person I believe. People like me and MacGyver fully admit when we don't understand these things. Others may not admit it but it may well still be the same.



    It's one thing to be a minority of thousands or hundreds of thousands. It's another to be all alone. Nevertheless, since I know you, I brought up your issue with Tony. I remember that he'd more or less said the same thing when he first started posting here; anyway, here's his new response and my comments on it:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2162280&postcount=108



    Honestly, NIST relies heavily on its tweaked out computer simulations. Ofcourse, in their simulation, they didn't even go past 'poised for collapse' for the twin towers. They -did- simulate the collapse in the case of WTC 7. People -definitely- have protested that NIST has refused to reveal the data to put in to get the results they got. To me, the whole thing is something of a cruel joke- we won't show you the results and in the case of the twin towers, we won't even attempt to simulate the collapse. Why bother? People will suck up our "professional expertise" and leave the matter be. Honestly, the relatively crude simulation of the WTC 7 collapse doesn't really even look like what actually happened- in the simulation, it's like the building seems to suck into itself; in the actual event, it just falls straight down.


    Obama doesn't really seem to be all that interested in alternatives to the official story. If he was, I think he'd be a -little- less interested in going all out in Afghanistan and a little -more- interested in investigating to see if perhaps Osama Bin Laden was being honest when he said that he had nothing to do with it.
     
  12. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I think I tend to read much more then you at times; not only that but I tend to respond to more points then almost anyone, which is why my posts tend to be bigger then what I'm responding to.


    Well, I'm sure there's a limit to how many jet crashes it could take. But perhaps it could have handled 3. The twin towers were way sturdier then most people realize.


    Can't you atleast admit that if the designers felt that the towers could have possibly sustained a couple jets, but that even the lead designer believed that they could be taken down by controlled demolitions, that that possibility should have been investigated? Fortunately, it -was- investigated; by Steven Jones, who found thermate, which is indeed an explosive. NIST et all still -can- investigate it- Steven Jones has offered to give some of his sample or to collect more. But at present, no one seems interested. Don't you think that looks just a -tad- suspicious?


    I certainly do. If you make a whole in mosquito netting, does the net collapse? Nope. Same applies with the twin towers. I'll grant you that he could have perhaps used a better example; after all, mosquito netting is held up not just from the bottom, but from the top as well. I personally like the example of a notable from the truth movement, that of the connector set; even if you'd clean ripped through the building and taken out a few stories (which didn't happen, but anyway), a connector building wouldn't just collapse at free fall speeds; in fact, the floors below the floors that had collapsed would completely halt the fall downwards; perhaps the bricks would fall off to the side, but the rest of the building wouldn't simply crumple in a matter of seconds. Shaman_ has derided this example, saying that you can't simply scale up from a connector set. And yet, the notable who was mentioning this scenario said that, if anything, the WTC buildings were would be even -stronger- then the connector set, if you could scale the buildings down to that size.


    You copied me on that 'unsubstantiated claims' bit, admit it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Anyway, I contend that my claims are so substantiated ;-).
     
  13. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    and....?

    Why resort to conjecture when facts are available?
     
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Analogies have their limits. Jet fuel and office fires didn't have a chance in hell of vaporizing steel. Or even melting it. Which is why NIST can't admit that any steel was even melted, let alone vaporized. I wish the person who'd asked Jonathan Barnett -why- he initially thought that some of the steel had been vaporized. I'd do it myself if I knew his email address, but no go...


    Many facts have been hard to come by; just ask psikey

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . However, even with the data we have, it seems clear to me that the only way that WTC 7 and the twin towers could have come down is by controlled demolitions.
     
  15. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Thats nice.
     
  16. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Ofcourse they do. Even an demolition expert thought WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and explains how it could have been done:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I



    This is the type of thing that Tony or perhaps Headspin would be better at. I'll see if I can get one of them to respond to this...


    Hundreds? I think you'd have better luck finding hundreds of investigators that -do- agree.


    NIST fully admits they never tested for explosives and none of the WTC 7 steel was examined, so what did you expect?


    Perhaps they may have been placed in the elevator shafts, as John Gross believes was done in the twin towers. Perhaps it was sprayed on as I believe Headspin has suggested.


    Actually, there's plenty. From whatreallyhappened.com's article, Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition:
    [WTC 7] contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions. [Online Journal]

    The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed [by the collapse of WTC 7]. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases." [New York Lawyer]

    Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center, one of the buildings that collapsed in the aftermath of the attack. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack. [TheStreet]

    Inside [WTC 7 was] the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. ..."All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran. [TechTV]​


    There are some people in high places who already believe that 9/11 was an inside job. The main problem is that not enough of the people who both believe it -and- want to do something about it are in place. And remember that many people in power are elected there. And to be elected to high office, people have to believe in them and what they believe in in turn. It all starts right here; if more average people can't be convinced, then this may well be a repeat of what happened at Pearl Harbor, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or the JFK assasination; more people will question it as time goes by but by the time there's truly enough people to actually -do something about it-, most if not all of the people who were responsible for what -really- happened won't even be alive anymore. Perhaps there'll be another 9/11 incident in a decade or 2 and the cycle will repeat itself. I'm willing to accept this possibility. But I'm -not- willing to simply give up trying to persuade others of what I believe really happened.


    Actually, Bin Laden did. Which is why they had to produce that fake video of him (it clearly wasn't) saying that he did.


    The alleged 'masterminds' behind 9/11? From what I hear, the 'mastermind' they have in prison may well be someone who is mentally disturbed. Then they torture people in Guantanamo, making anything they say highly suspect, to put it mildly. In a very real way, I like the WTC collapses for the same reason that psikeyhackr does- it takes much of the politics out of the equation and forces us to look more at the scientific arguments for and against the controlled demolition theory.

    In my view, the arguments and evidence for it far outweight the arguments and evidence against it and I'm not alone in holding this view. The hard part is in persuading people who still believe that the official story is valid. There's certainly something to be said about the emotional aspect of it all. Who wants to believe that elements of one's own government could have played an integral part in what happened?
     
  17. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
  18. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Are you implying that I'm resorting to conjecture when facts are available? If so, what is it that you believe that I'm conjecturing and what facts do you believe I'm.. missing?
     
  19. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    ok...what is wrong with you?
     
  20. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Official story supporter's lethal paper, Round 4

    This post is in response to shaman_'s post 1726 in this thread.

    Alright, will you simply admit that for now, the only logical argument you know of is that it was thermite or thermate?


    Yes, I have, or I would never have heard of the thermite/thermate argument.


    I simply believe that it's the only logical explanation I've heard of. And I believe it's the only logical explanation -you've- heard of as well.


    I have a theory, as do you; yours in planes and jet fuel, mine is controlled demolition. Here's to hoping you can admit that on this issue, the only logical explanation that you or I know is that it was thermite/thermate.



    Yep. But by the time it got down to ground level, it was generally aerosolized; so, not as concentrated. Anyway, here's a good video of what thermite is capable of:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdCsbZf1_Ng


    I never said you did. I said you linked to the guy who did. You did so back in post 185, wherein you linked to a ream of sites that I assume you felt were good stuff. The link is from one of your favourite sites actually. Here's the link in question:
    http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/theyoughtaknowbetter:critiquesoftheinept

    In that page, it has the following link:
    [Steven] Jones thinks vehicles around WTC site may have been set afire by "thermite dust." As opposed to, you know, paper.

    I'm not interested in bothering with your fluffsters, other to make some of their absurd claims clear. If anyone should be taking it up with him, it's you- you're the one who proudly linked to the page with said fluffster.


    What are you talking about? You don't even have an alternative. How about if I say "It's the only credible answer either of us has at present"? That way, you can continue to pine for one that doesn't mess up your fantasy that the official story is the cat's meow.


    Look, if all you said was that I have fluff answers, I wouldn't have reported any of your posts. I don't even call you a fanatic.


    I personally think that the steel was explosively bent. You can believe that the steel is softened if you want. Tony Szamboti has made it clear that you can't tell what temperatures a piece of steel reached simply by looking it shape.


    Let's take a look at that article...


    I'm not "cherry picking". I'm telling you why I believe what I believe.


    The New York Times reporter(s) said that Astaneh is the one who claimed it. Another New York Times article said that Jonathan Barnett said there had been evidence of evaporated steel; Jonathan Barnett was asked about it and he didn't deny it, but essentially seemed to imply that it was a mistake. He was never asked as to -why- he thought it was a mistake. I'd ask him myself if I knew his email address. In any case, the fact that Jonathan Barnett didn't deny it when asked about his comment strongly suggests that the New York Times didn't misinterpret Astaneh as well. It may well be that Jonathan Barnett's comment was actually because he had heard Astaneh talk of it. After all, Jonathan Barnett was investigating WTC 7 and no steel at all was saved from that building; so what could he himself have witnessed?


    Surely you are aware the a metal can melt and then resolidify later, reforming in shapes which suggest previous melting?


    He has made it clear that he -believes- that the jet initiated fires were responsible. He is not some infallible deity, you know.


    You have yet to present any evidence which suggests otherwise.


    The twin towers core columns were cut up into pieces and the concrete was pulverized. Looks like they did a pretty good of breaking things with force to me...


    I should have been more specific:
    I don't recall him ever looking for any clues of explosives being used.


    Actually, a few people did: Steven Jones and some colleagues of his. They found evidence that thermate was used. NIST freely admits they never tested for thermite type compounds, though. I think they could still do so, if they wanted to. They've certainly never said they couldn't. And yet, they don't. They give some lame reasons as to why they didn't investigate to see if thermite was used. Robert Moore handily debunks their lame reasons in his peer reviwed paper, Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1.


    Thermate.


    The Cardington report wasn't simulating the temperatures in the WTC buildings. Even more importantly, the steel didn't collapse in the Cardington tests.


    You don't see much, so I'm willing to bet that at the very least, a fair amount of it is.


    Via controlled demolition, sure

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  21. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    What are you talking about? You may wish to quote what you're responding to a little more often; the way it is right now, it frequently makes it -very- hard to understand what you're talking about a fair amount of the time.
     
  22. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    you cant understand my posts?
     
  23. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    incredible. i am speechless.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page