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

Sure you may quote me.

The possibility that radical Muslims could do that is no less scary. In fact I would be comforted if I was ruled by a government capable off pulling off the ridiculous conspiracy you believe in. Has Bush done anything anywhere near that competent in his time in office?

They went out sure there was a conspiracy and they took the interpretations they wanted. They interviewed people who thought they saw the plane hit the pentagon, ignored that and decided the plane didn’t hit the pentagon. If these guys had interviewed people at the WTC they would probably convince themselves the same thing.

You don't seem to be able to refute any of our arguments but your blind faith in the conspiracy prevents you from seeing reason.

My comments weren’t only directed at you. "No plane hit this building” is like a stupid troother catchcry.

Yes it is interesting it confirms that the temperatures did not in fact reach that high.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You guys do remember that there was a subway station under the towers, that could produce some of these irregularities.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think it would be better if you 'dealt' with the fact that 521 architects and engineers have publicly questioned the official storyline regarding 9/11. Their arguments as to why the WTC collapses were in fact demolitions can be seen on their page on the right hand side:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

As I have mentioned before, Steven Jones has dealt with NIST's deplorable 'evidence' as to the sagging floors. Once again:
***********************************
The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in building collapse. But ‘one must save the hypothesis,’ so more severe cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST report:

The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,...the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)
The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.)

How fun (perhaps) to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling. Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were “adjusted” by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)
***********************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf , page 36

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, but objects also follow the path of least resistance; my understanding of this is that when one of the floors collapsed, it would have been easier the debris to have fallen off the side of the building into the air, instead of breaking the floors below it. I remember seeing a buliding collapsing on its own (poor construction I imagine, not a problem that the WTC towers had) and it definitely collapsed in a certain direction and it wasn't a complete collapse either.

And yes, the tower leaned a bit before it was pulverized in mid air. Did gravity do that too?

Kevin Ryan, who has fired from his job for disagreeing with the official story, had this to say:
***********************************
Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did his own brief statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST report, arguing that probabilities of collapse-initiation needed to be calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a likelihood analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan’s estimate is that the probability that fires and damage (the “official theory”) could cause the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a trillion, and the probability is much less still when the complete collapse of WTC7 is included:
To follow the latest "leading hypothesis" [of NIST], what are the odds that all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without much test data, let's say it's one in a thousand. And what are the odds that the office furnishings converged to supply highly directed and (somehow) forced-oxygen fires at very precise points on the remaining columns? Is it another one in a thousand? What is the chance that those points would then all soften in unison, and give way perfectly, so that the highly dubious "progressive global collapse" theory could be born? I wouldn't even care to guess. But finally, with well over a hundred fires in tall buildings through history, what are the chances that the first, second and third incidents of fire-induced collapse would all occur on the same day? Let's say it's one in a million. Considering just these few points we're looking at a one in a trillion chance, using generous estimates and not really considering the third building (no plane, no jet fuel, different construction [for WTC 7]).
How convenient that our miraculous result, combined with several other trains of similarly unlikely events [no interception of hijacked planes by the military on 9/11, etc.], gives us reason to invade the few most strategically important lands for the production of oil and natural gas...” (Ryan, 2005).
***********************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf , page 40


But perhaps you'd like a second opinion, from a site of architects and engineers, perhaps? From Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth web site (complete with some very educational pictures):
http://www.ae911truth.org/twintowers.php

 

You are imagining incorrectly. The floors in the vicinity of the collision were structurally weakened by the intense heat and explosion itself and the floors fell straight down. Also remember that these floors were not empty and the further down it went the heavier the weight became.

Hence, no controlled demolition. The whole notion is imbecilic and impossible anyway.

 

To add to that i dont think you know how the joints were fastened at the floors anyway. Do you think it was a complete steel shell?

 

You need to bone up on your Newtonian physics. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by another force. The only force involved is the downward force of gravity. Objects don't "look for a path of least resistance"..That is a term used with electricity and fluids. It's like dropping a bowling ball on a house of cards. It just tears right through it.

 

There have been good arguments made that the effect of the planes and their jet fuel was negligible. Some have argued that the Windsor tower in Madrid, because it did partially collapse, "validates the official account of the collapses of WTC Buildings 1, 2, and 7."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

However, in the case of the WTC buildings, 9/11 Research states this:
"Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses. "
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

Steel structures is not the same thing as steel-framed sky scrapers:
"Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse"
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

 

Stay stupid then.:shrug:

 

In the cases of both towers, there was more than enough of the core still standing to rule out charges placed in the core of the towers themselves. If the charges were placed in the core, then how come the floors around the core collapsed leaving much of the core momentarily intact?

I don't know what you are basing your statement on that NIST are holding on to "most" (if any) video recordings.

In any case, there are enough cameras filming very close to the WTC which are on YouTube. I can think of 3 off the top of my head which the people filming were so close that they had to run for their lives. In all three videos there were no punctuated sounds which you would expect to hear from a sequenced demolition. Just a slow steady rumble.

Most of which are taken out of context/using similies ("like a bomb")/describing the sound of the collapse of the building/planes hitting the building/bodies impacting the ground/fuel exploding through elevator shafts etc etc.

How many of these 118 people believe bombs were actually used? Judging from their continued silence, probably none.

Yes, windows that where hit by debris and typically on the lower floors. If it was bombs that caused these windows to smash, we would expect window breakage to be more uniform up and down the tower and not just where it would have been hit by debris.

And yet the poor quality video you presented of your top down collapse, you could clearly distinguish punctuated explosions in conjunction with flashes. This, despite the fact the camera appears to be quite a distance away. Make no mistake that bombs would be above and beyond the sound of the background rumble of the collapse. It would be unmistakable to not only the cameras, but everyone in lower Manhatten. You would have a much larger list of witnesses, except that this list would not consist of misleading out of context testimony.

You think those are explosive flashes? Haha!

Most of these flashes appear to be ABOVE the actual collapse point and in NO WAY are the explosive in nature. It looks more like peices of debris reflecting sunlight.

It's no wonder I missed these "flashes" the first time...

 

I've found that I've repeated myself many times myself. I strongly believe that if we could divide this thread into different components, such as the WTC collapes, the pentagon collapse and another for other events, we'd do better, but the powers that be seem to think that any theory that doesn't conform to the official 9/11 storyline is somehow all one and the same. When challenged on this, they seem to enjoy saying that all 9/11 theories that don't conform to the official storyline are silly and then wander off. To me, this speaks more of their lack of knowledge concerning said theories then anything else, but they -are- the powers that be and all we can do is take it or leave it.

 

No, because this is a science board, not a 9/11 conspiracy board. No offense, you could use some science. Try looking at my "what is inertia?" thread in the physics forum. It might give you an idea of why objects do not "follow the path of least resistance". Don't worry, I'm the one asking the questions, it's the smart guys that are answering them.

 

I pray you're not saying the top part exploded.

 

I highly doubt they bothered to do that. Perhaps they took out some -very- suspicious pieces (perhaps pieces of steel that clearly show that they were melted or even evaporated). As to the thermite, much easier to simply not test for thermite at all, which NIST has clearly admitted to. As far as I know, they could -still- test for thermite. And yet they have maintained for quite some time that it's unnecessary using easily debunked arguments.

Oh, and give one guy 'access' to around 1,500 tons of steel a day before it's carted off, presumably to china for recycling. And if he finds the tasks of properly analyzing so much in so little time a burden, ah well, that's life, right? Here's where I talk extensively about it:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2067319&postcount=1771

I have already mentioned that it doesn't really take all that many people to pull this off, only that the people who are are in a position of making certain decisions, such as what evidence was allowed to be seen by the investigators and how much time they had to analyze it.

They could have easily moved it to a more appropriate location, as 9/11 research makes clear:
*************************************
Destruction of Evidence: WTC Steel

The pattern of destruction of physical evidence is nowhere more apparent than in the rapid removal and recycling of the steel from Ground Zero. The structural steel was the most important evidence regarding the mass murder of September 11th. No amount of indulgence of forelorn hopes of finding survivors in the rubble, nor urgency of uncovering human remains for speedy identification, can justify the destruction of the evidence.

* If it was necessary to remove steel to another location to accommodate rescue and recovery efforts, the steel easily could have been preserved.
* Any steel pieces to be removed should first have been meticulously documented through the use of coordinate grids and photographs. This is standard practice in archeological excavations.
* Building 7 was evacuated long before it collapsed, and it fell into a tidy rubble pile that did not even block adjacent roadways. There was no urgency in removing its rubble, and certainly not in destroying it.

The remains of the Twin Towers should have been afforded at least the same level of respect as the artifacts in an archeological dig, or remnants of an aviation disaster. Instead they were treated as garbage to be disposed of as quickly as possible. That the authorities hid their crime behind talk of rescue and recovery is exploitation of the most reprehensible kind. In fact, families and friends of the victims vocally protested the destruction of the Ground Zero evidence.
*************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/evidence.html

 

Yes, yes, very funny

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Steven Jones claims to have found thermate, which is also known as nanothermite. From this I understand that thermite is ruled out and I believe that nanothermate doesn't exist. In any case, Steven Jones seems to focus on the fact that his spheres are indeed iron rich. But he also mentions that certain USGS spheres were -also- iron rich:
"Micrograph from USGS report confirms presence of iron-rich spheres in the dust produced during destruction of theWorld Trade Center."
www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf , page 25

 

Actually, it only addresses the issue of what metal was coming out of the WTC tower before it collapsed. Note that he is speculating as to whether it was aluminum with copper oxides. Steven Jones isn't arguing that it was molten steel, but rather molten iron. It may even be that if the molten iron came from thermate, then it wouldn't have to have come from the structural steel at all; yes, I'm speculating at this point as well, but it seems both sides are. In any case, I will make a note of trying to consult with others in the truth movement concerning this.

 

Laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I didn't say that. I simply think that some theories seem to be too dumb to continue going on without some misinformation agents actively working on them.

Gods of Thermate, laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

You make me laugh, but I'd say that it's the official story that relies more heavily on the aforementioned qualities. As for myself, I certainly cite my sources.

I feel bad that he was put on paid leave in the university he worked for, but atleast things seem to have worked out relatively well there, all things considered. I wish we all had such noble means of making money as trying to speak up concerning the truth regarding 9/11.

I should have said that you have mentioned no possible motive. Clearly you think he may have one. So, by all means, speak up; what have you speculated?

 

Ok.

I disagree, but this -really- has nothing to do with 9/11 as far as I can tell. I could discuss it I suppose, but I'm thinking we should move it to politics or something.

Did you see the movie Zeitgeist? The first part talks about religion (not sure where you stand on that). I imagine you wouldn't agree with the second part (it supports the alternate theory regarding 9/11), but you may agree with some of the third part, which talks of international banking cartels and the like.

Sounds good

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I'm left wing myself, but not sure if I'd classify myself as a marxist/leninist.

 

That so? Show me the evidence.

He got it near the end of 2005 if memory serves. Why it took him the amount of time it did (if it's true that he got the results sometime in 2007, it'd make it atleast a year and a bit), I don't know. If I ever find out, I'll try to let you know. But I stand by my conviction that what's more important is the results that he got, not how long it took him to get them. It took official 9/11 reports forever to get results as well. But while much ado has been made about that as well, I personally have focused on -their- results, not on how long it took them to come up with them.

Sigh. I'm just saying that I trust Steven Jones to not have tampered with the evidence, which you seem to believe he may have done.

 

Where did I say that?

Appearances can be deceiving. I would argue that I go where the evidence leads me.