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. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

    edit - i cannot provide the full links because i have less than 20 posts - so you'll have to add the www at the start, thanks scott.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2008
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Ha! That's a good one.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I notice none of the Troofers will touch it with a ten foot pole.
     
  8. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    no that's not true, no one is avoiding your question, your question is just a little vague "does a gas fire create enough heat to melt steel?" do you mean gasoline or natural gas? if you mean natural gas, there was no natural gas supply to the twin towers, so the question is not relevant. If you mean gasoline then the answer is that gasoline fires will not melt steel girders.

    Why do you use the term "troofer", if you are a teenager then i can accept that children enjoy mocking, but if you are an adult then i think you should be more mature. perhaps people avoid you rather than your questions because you act like a baby.
     
  9. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    There were thousands of tetimonies taken. Yes there are some where people describe hearing banging noises they thought were explosions. It may have even been a reasonable guess at the time considering there was a bombing attempt a few years earlier. However there were also many things causing those noises that day that were not bombs. How else would you describe a large banging noise anyway? You talk about evidence but you discard all these possibilities. There is no evidence for bombs other than the pitiful cherry picking of witness testimony, which can be explained.


    No you are ignoring the discussion that was at hand. We know that the steel softened. We know that the temperature was more than enough for this to happen. It would have been down to a very small % of its structural strength. The conspiracy theorists make claims of molten metal and references to the melting point of steel. If these girders were still recognizable as girders then they were never liquid. So what he is describing sounds like extremely soft steel, which is not suspicious at all.

    It is good that you consider him to be an expert and his testimony to be important. Abolhassan Astaneh, who specializes in structural damage caused by bombings, investigated the steel and found no evidence for bombs. But conspiracy theorists do like to take quotes out of context..


    The question should now be asked why the hell you guys keep bringing it up. Do you ask people in the biology sub forum why they point out the flaws in Intelligent Design? Some people can't help but respond when they see nonsense. You should probably get used to that.
     
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Are you sure? Very sure? On a scale from 1 to 10, how sure are you?

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/04/4318_fuel_tanker_mel.html

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/truck-fire-melts-bridge/2007/04/30/1177788022254.html

    Well, I don't agree that what they're presenting is the truth. Mostly I do it because it gets Ganymede mad. But just because your feelings are hurt, I'll stop using it for now.
     
  11. Miragememories Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    Bolding is mine.

    Each Twin Tower core had 47 massive columns.

    According to NIST's baseline case estimates, in WTC1, 3 columns were severed (6%) and 4 columns were heavily damaged (8.5%).

    Using these best reference estimates, their computer simulation failed to achieve collapse initiation.

    According to NIST's baseline case estimates, in WTC2, 5 columns were severed (10.6%) and 4 columns were heavily damaged (8.5%).

    Using these best reference estimates, their computer simulation failed to achieve collapse initiation.

    Interestingly, Kenny, you consider these estimates to represent "many of the steel columns"

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

    Messages:
    7,028
    I googled "nano thermite, and there were no links except to 911 websites. Hmmm.

    Edit: I read your link,

    So they don't exist yet.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2008
  13. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    The problem you face however, is that if there were bombs in the towers that were used with the intention of demolition, they would be heard for miles... and not limited locally to those inside the towers. They would have smashed windows in the surrounding buildings, they would be picked up by all the cameras and heard by those surrounding the towers also. Instead, cameras (even those very very close to the towers) picked up no sound until after the towers started falling.

    Perhaps you should watch a couple of videos of REAL controlled demolitions and you will hear quite clearly from a significant distance the explosives being detonated.

    Also, bombs or thermite? Troofers just want both, thus making their hilarious paranoid theories all the more unlikely.
     
  14. Miragememories Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    That link you provided does not provide photographic evidence of "sagging".
    It offers a photographic argument to support "bowing", and concludes that sagging trusses were causing this by "pulling" the perimeter column inward.

    I'm not going to argue against the existence of perimeter column "bowing".

    What I dispute is the theory that the columns were bowing because floor trusses were "sagging".

    sagging
    sink gradually under weight

    As I've already posted, any steel trusses undergoing heat expansion and unable to force a bulge in the columns that they are end-to-end connected to, would be force to bend.

    Bending is not the same as sagging.

    bending
    force into a curve or angle

    A floor truss that truly "sags", is in effect, a dead weight hanging from the end columns to which it is joined, and is no longer able to push back or resist column movement.

    A floor truss that is "bent" from resisted heat expansion, may have lost some strength, but is still pushing back (like a spring) against it's end columns.

    I'll add that trusses, disconnected from a core which is undergoing an artificially induced failure (controlled demolition), would definitely have sufficient torque to cause bowing in the perimeter columns to which they remain connected.

    MM
     
  15. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    not true, aluminothermic nanoenergetic composites have existed since the 1990s, the Simpson document which you quote was even on the net before 9-11.
     
  16. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    "Nanothermite", heh.

    Is it laid down by nanobots? Does it destroy nanobuildings?

    ...actually that sounds kind of fun.
     
  17. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    So why would the insiders use such an exotic material, when much more common materials are available and would do the job in a tried and true way? Doesn't make any sense to me. Occam's razor.
     
  18. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Yep. More chance it'd be found. Why not just pack the airliner with explosives?
     
  19. Miragememories Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    I am quite interested in anything that offers insight into the internal failure of WTC7.

    Remove a building's structural support and gravity will produce it's collapse.

    The one thing that was obvious about WTC7, was that it suffered a high speed catastrophic loss of structural support across a complete floor (the size of a football field).

    NIST in their final report on WTC7, have come to the amazing conclusion that office furnishing's fires, unaided by physical damage and zero loss of SFRM, managed to create enough heat to bring about the failure of column 79.

    On top of this, the NIST expects us to not question their belief that the internal structure of the building suffered total failure over a period of 7 seconds while the complete north face of WTC7 remained calm and displayed a few broken windows.

    This theory is used explain the symmetrical collapse of the WTC7 outer shell.

    MM
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2008
  20. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    explosions were heard for miles, they were witnessed and heard from hoboken harbour. you need to actually watch the video i provided, it details people outside the towers including international media sources describing huge explosions prior to the collapse etc. here it is again:
    youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw
     
  21. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    I can think of several reasons that would make sense - nobody would be forensically looking for exotic explosives, thermites can be tailor made to behave as incendaries or high explosives, or anywhere in between. If it was your intention to hide the way the towers came down, then nanothermite looks to an ideal candidate. Applied as a paint coating or a foam direct to the steel beams, the people installing it would have no knowledge of its purpose.

    if your intention is to install explosives without the installers knowledge of its purpose, then occams razor actually works in favour of Nanothermite.
     
  22. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    "Applied as a paint coating or a foam direct to the steel beams, the people installing it would have no knowledge of its purpose."

    And who did the application?

    Who supplied the company contracted to do the work?

    *men in trenchcoats and funny mustaches said here try this*

    How was it ignited?
     
  23. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Next you will be telling us it was triethylenemonsulfatehydrosulfide.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page