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
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Maybe there are spooks in the forum. However, I now doubt it's any of the posters who regularly respond in here. I think you've got to remember that a lot of people want to believe the official 9/11 story. The idea that the government played a part in it would radically alter their world views. Most of the time, people don't like having their world views altered. Best to cling to whatever the official story tellers say. And I don't think this phenomenom is limited to americans.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I don't know about barium, but take a look at this:

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

    One was clearly from "MacKinlay’s apartment". As to the other mentioned, the USGS “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust”, I don't know yet (this isn't my day job after all).


    They prefer civility to rudeness, as do I. However, few official story people post there and so it lacks arguments to counter.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Miragememories Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    There is no proof that floor trusses bent as much as NIST claimed they would have.

    The NIST report, I believe stated that some trusses "sagged" 3 feet, instead of using the more honest terminology; that some trusses expanded in a downward directed "bend".

    The NIST based there 3 foot assumption on favored tests and selective interpretation of test results.

    According to NIST's theory, the inward "bowing" perimeter columns were a result of "sagging" floor trusses "pulling" them inward.

    Maybe you would care to explain this "suck and blow" at the same time phenomenon?

    Allow me to explain how this is an impossible "suck and blow" theory.

    As the temperature of the steel trusses increased, they would expand.

    The expanding trusses would push against the outer perimeter columns and and the inner core columns.

    The heavy core columns would easily resist this pressure.

    If the external perimeter columns were able to resist this pressure as well, the expanding trusses would have to bend to find space for their increasing length from heat expansion.

    "Bending" is not the same as "sagging", although in outward appearance they may look the same.

    Each floor truss would only start "pulling" on it's joined perimeter and core column when the steel became so hot that it lost all it's rigidity and was no longer "expanding and pushing".

    At that point, the truss would pull and "sag" like a chain.

    There is no reason to believe that such an incredibly high temperature was ever reached and sustained long enough to soften the truss steel to that degree.

    MM
     
  8. Miragememories Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    Or the tooth fairy with a magic wand.

    Even in the impact area of WTC1 (North Tower) where high resolution photographs
    provide a great amount of detail, there remained a lot of SFRM coated steel.

    It is even more likely that the structural steel that was not in the direct path of the incoming aircraft,
    as well as the areas which were shielded by the building's heavy steel core columns, would have had most of it's SFRM remain intact.

    MM
     
  9. Miragememories Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    Debris (potential fire fuel) indeed exited the other side of the towers.

    Exiting debris would be less likely to have removed SFRM because direct contact with SFRM coated structural steel would tend to block it's exit and severely reduce
    it's remaining energy.

    MM
     
  10. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    You mean it's simply taken out. I know. I have dealt with the same problem when responding to posts from you and others. In post 910 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2020895&postcount=910), you state:
    ***Yes, but Steven Jones does claim it was thermAte. Correct me if I’m wrong, but a thermate reaction will always give off barium nitrate and aluminum oxide.***

    If I had simply hit the reply button and attempted to figure out the answer from it, I would have been lost, since I frequently rely on links that I put in my posts and that you quote. So I went back to your original post, copied what you'd quoted from me and put it into my response, post 941 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2022667&postcount=941).

    Anyway, when it comes to outside sources, I may begin to put *** to make it easier to respond.
     
  11. Miragememories Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    Show me your proof that steel was witnessed to have been sufficiently weakened
    to behave in the manner to which you prescribe?

    Again, extensive loss of fire protection is unproven, and the NIST was unable to back up there theory with unequivocal test proofs.

    "Except for one case, fires behind windows on WTC1's east face last 6 minutes to 16 minutes. One window on floor 92 shows a fire lasting 28 minutes, which is long enough in duration to have the potential to warp steel." [NCSTAR 1-3, p58].

    MM
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2008
  12. Miragememories Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    A fully-loaded Boeing 767-200 has a maximum takeoff weight of 315,000 lbs or approximately a little more than 155 tons.

    A bullet is a solid lead projectile.

    A Boeing 767-200 is more like a missile with no warhead, deriving it's destructive ability from aviation fuel and direct impact with it's target.

    The NIST model only achieved collapse initiation in their most severe case computer model.

    In order to make their computer model succeed, NIST admitted that it was necessary to assume that most of the SFRM was removed.

    NIST never proved the validity of that massive assumption.

    MM
     
  13. Miragememories Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    How short a lifespan would make you pause and reflect Kenny?

    Many experts very much question the NIST Official Theory.

    It's particularly questioned because of NIST's failure to successfully explain the
    mysterious total high speed collapse of WTC 7.

    MM
     
  14. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Or the Troofers, of the assumption of thermite that also went boom.

    By the by, do gas fires melt steel?
     
  15. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    because you have the official story and the unofficial story. with so many people in the world there will always be those hawking unofficial stories. some for political reason, some to build themselves a web site, some to write books and make dvd's. some play movies maker etc. some delusional too.
     
  16. Miragememories Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    When you start making articulate respectful posts, I'll respond to
    your questions.

    MM
     
  17. Miragememories Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    Hawking?

    The Official Story is based on the Official Theory.

    I've read the NIST 10,000 page report and followed the discussion in many 9/11 forums.

    My opinions are honest and I'm quite prepared to change my mind.

    So far the Official Theory followers have failed to make a quality case that is supported by the evidence.

    MM
     
  18. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    Because you can name a handful of "experts" that agree with you does not mean you have anything like the consensus the "official story" (as you like to call it) has among real experts.

    Well it strikes me as a very modest number considering that they actually believe the government orchestrated 9/11. If I genuinely believed the government did this, I would be rallying.

    150? That is pathetic! New York City has a population of over 8 million people!

    Of course, because what they have is like a religion. Any website that is dedicated to things like religion, conspiracy theories, the paranormal; they all operate of belief and belief alone. They know this, so they get embarrassed when someone ridicules them. They have something to hide, which is why they have to keep a tab on people that come on to ridicule them. I don't feel I ridiculed them anymore than Headspin ridiculed RKOwens, and yet I was the only one that was banned.

    I would love to post on Loose Change forums, but if they can't handle being ridiculed, I guess it's not to be.

    I'm glad I've helped you become more dishonest than you were when I started with you. Right off the bat, I labeled you as a dishonest person and when confronted with facts I've watched you become more and more dishonest to ignore them.

    The fact you believe the government would place spies on thousands of forums like this completely discredits anything you say. You are a tin hatter.
     
  19. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    MM,

    I respectfully request that you articulate a response to the conflict of hearing explosions in the Towers with your suddenly and respectfully evoked hypothesis of thermite being used to cut the steel. In the common parlance this is sometimes respectfully referred to as "How thermite go boom?"

    With respectful articulation,

    GeoffP
     
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Oh, and: Does gas melt steel or not?

    These are questions pertinent to our articulate respectation.
     
  21. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    The same picture NIST provided which showed no fire proofing on the steel?

    What makes you think the core columns had most of its fire proofing when many of the steel columns would have been severed or heavily damaged by the plane?

    The inward bowing of the perimeter columns and initiation of collapse happened exactly where the fire was doing the most damage. This was seen to happen with both towers.

    There is also photographic evidence of the floors sagging to be found here:
    http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

    In all likelihood, there may have been parts of the steel that were naked prior to the plane crashing into the building. You can see photographs of this here:
    http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm

    But since you claim to have read all 10,000 pages of the NIST report, you would have seen them already.

    Regardless of how much evidence NIST found of fireproofing being removed, it's the simplest explanation that the destructive force of the impact and explosion removed much of the fireproofing in the areas fire developed.

    I think this beats your unproven thermite theory. I'm still waiting for you to show a test in which thermite could horizontally cut a thick steel beam remotely. Instead of cherry picking the NIST report, why don't you give us some calculations on your alternative theory? For all the hot air nutjobs spend on thermite, they never actually proceed in showing how it would be possible.

    On reflection, I'm surprised it stood that long at all. A plane carves a hole in a skyscraper and it still stands. Amazing.

    I sure am keen to learn of any controversy about how the towers collapsed. Scott has failed in his attempts as the only thing he can do is cite a kooky website full of noname "experts".

    Well obviously you ignore the internal failure that preceded the external collapse of WTC7.

    A failure of a critical structural element means that the immense weight from above succumbs to gravity. Depending on the structure, it's entirely believable that the whole thing could come down very quickly. It's nothing like that "clunkity-clunk" nutjob stated. It's simply gravity and momentum.
     
  22. Miragememories Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    Geoff your question is incomprehensible.

    MM
     
  23. Miragememories Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    Boom?

    Please Geoff, show me where I characterized thermite ignition as creating a "boom"?

    Since you raised the subject, sources tell me that thermite is available in a composition
    that is explosive in character.

    "nanothermite composite leads to a fast propagating combustion, generating shock waves with Mach numbers up to 3"

    Mach 3 is equivalent to 1,020 m/s.

    "High explosives...detonates at rates ranging from 1,000 to 9,000 meters per second"

    So I guess Nano-thermite can behave similarly to a high explosive including the sound wave.

    MM
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page