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

For me...it's a simple matter of common sense. When people are planning things ..they generally try to make things as simple as possible..to minimize the amount of things that could go wrong.

For me..it's just doesn't make sense to use BOTH airplanes and explosives. It's redundant. Explosives have been used on the WTF before 9/11...if the "insiders" went to the trouble of setting charges capable of bringing down the tower..it eliminates the need for planes crashing into the building.

Just plant the charges...call channel 5 news claiming to be Muslim terrorists...tell them your going to blow up the building in 30 minutes. They could set off a small charge to show their not bull shitting. The media has plenty of time to get there..and then blow both towers at the same time in front of the whole fucking world. You get the same effect or greater without the need for planes.

Plus the US government doesn't need to bring down buildings in New York if we want to go to war with someone or do something shady...all they need to do is make up stories about weapons of mass destruction.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps I missed something here, but has someone said it had to be horizontal? I thought the melting/cutting was done at an angle.

Anyway, it seems everyone's dodging this 'evidence for explosives' used question. I'm guessing people suspect that Headspin has evidence that it was indeed used and people don't want to feel 'caught' into admitting that a demolition was done. I certainly do.

So is this the feeling right now?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I assume thousands must know of it because this is what would be required to plant the explosives, spread the airplane parts around the Pentagon, represent all the witnesses to the crashes, not to mention the firemen and other rescue workers, the forensics people who performed all the tests and retrieved the bodies and evidence, the engineers who worked on the project, and so forth.

But not in the sense you implied it. Come on, let's be honest about this issue. You implied I was a spook, not a university prof on state funds.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The latter points are speculative at this point. We have not concluded the cause with all in agreement. And while 5 seconds may not seem like much, the total time supposed by Troofers for a free fall was 10 seconds. This is an increase of 50%. Even if the absolute numbers are themselves small, the change in these profiles is not relatively small.

Well, I haven't seen these statistics so I can't comment directly. I do know that steel loses more than half its support strength at the temperatures in the building, without taking into account the airplane that hit it at full speed.

If so, then why didn't the building free fall as expected?

 

This is the argument: the planes wouldn't have brought down the buildings and they wanted to buildings brought down. The original WTC explosion that happened in 1993 (again, evidence that it was an inside job) was impressive but it wasn't enough to get the public scared enough to pass more restrictive laws and get the war machine really going. Oklahoma was deemed more of a success (yes, again there is evidence that that was an inside job; my mother apparently once almost got evidence of such herself).

I think that most alternative theory believers believe that the planes were used as a form of misdirection; that is, they get the public thinking that it was planes that brought the buildings down so that people don't analyze all the suspicious things done in the buildings before they crashed there.

It's not that simple Mac. First, you have to get unimpeded access to the buildings. No video cameras recording the event would be a plus. This did indeed happen weeks before 9/11, but the people with such authority are not some muslims who have trouble speaking english.

Atleast you admit they did that at any rate. Just ask yourself this; if they can lie about that, why can't they lie about other things as well? How far do you think they're willing to go? Another thing to consider; if 9/11 hadn't happened, would U.S. citizens been so gullible? Or would they perhaps have taken politicians words with a little more skepticism?

 

Does he know that gasoline fires melt steel too?

Come to East Korea! We have much more lax drug standards. But your knowledge of electricity and its relation to the human body must be up to date.

Sometimes they freelance.

Yeees, but you did also call me a "goverment agent", like Ganymede. (I suppose I shouldn't say this, but frankly, I've read Ganymede's work about 9/11, and I'm convinced he must be a plant.)

Geoff

 

No, you're totally off the mark (as usual!). On both accounts.

Get this straight once and for all : thermite ONLY works VERTICALLY!!! Not horizontally NOR on an angle. And if you doubt me, please, PLEASE go check out some references yourself.

And no again - he has NO evidence whatsoever. Nothing more than just ignorant and uneducated speculation - exactly like yours is.:bugeye:

 

This is a specious objection: many muslims speak very good English. Moreover, an islamist terrorist cell managed to try and destroy the Towers before. It could certainly be done the same way again.

 

I think your assumptions are a little too grandiose. I have never tried to put a figure on how many people knew of some (if not all) of the story, but I think that it wouldn't have to exceed a few hundred, if that.

No, actually, I didn't. I implied that you're working for the government and thus may not wish to believe that elements within that same government could have been responsible for 9/11.

 

Well, then you're incorrect. I work for state, not fed.

Let's reconsider thermite for a second again:

This is from the site http://september11th.multiply.com/journal/item/24. As he mentions, this is "just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons."

I don't think the regular thermite is the option to explain the still-molten steel. And how long is the nanothermite going to burn? A lot less time, if it just blows up.

 

All those firemen, all the lab techs, all the engineers? A thousand at least. And they were all complicit in it, too. After hundreds of their friends were killed in the collapse.

It's just not plausible, Scott.

Geoff

 

I furthermore add this:

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm

"HOT STEEL WILL CONTINUE TO UNDERGO EXOTHERMIC OXIDATION REACTIONS WHILE EXPOSED TO AIR, CAUSING IRON TO INCREASE ITS TEMPERATURE UNTIL IT MELTS, FORMING POOLS OF MOLTEN IRON."

 

Sigh. The building couldn't have fallen due to the small fires seen before the collapse at all. This quibbling over a few seconds is tedious. In any case, alternate story supporters were relying on official government documents, as witnessed here (search for 'ten seconds'):
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm

The airplane did minimal damage to the support columns (I believe about 1%. The fires also did little damage and realistic NIST models show this. As Steven Jones puts it:
***************************************************
The less severe cases based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in building collapse. But ‘we 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 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, sorry gentlemen. 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.)
***************************************************

There's more, which you can see here:
http://physics911.net/stevenjones

Expected by whom? As mentioned, it came close to free falling. Why it took a bit longer probably has to do with the timing of the explosives as well as such things such as air friction.

 

Did not. But feel free to wade through the mighty tangle to attempt to prove me wrong.

And who, exactly, would -he- be working for? If you want to get paid for espousing conspiracy movement views, I think you'd better be a successful book author. Because you better believe that we're not getting 16 million dollar contracts to come up with government approved stuff.

 

Small fires? Have you watched the videos?

Over two hundred people decided to jump rather than be painfully burned to death. Did you see the footage of people literally hanging out windows just to get oxygen and away from the heat? To say that 10,000 gallons of jet fuel causes a small fire is somewhat absurd.

 

When did I say you worked for the fed? I simply stated you work for the goverment, not which branch.

Steven Jones never said that nano-thermite/thermate had to do it alone. In any case, you may want to take a look at this link I just found:
http://www.rense.com/general80/dprah.htm

-Luke: "I won't fail you. I'm not afraid"
Yoda: "Good. You will be. You will be."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWqIiCnCA-w

 

It seems there is evidence that atleast some of those fires were neither do to jet fuel or 'office supplies'. In any case, NIST itself seems to agree that the fires up until the collapse did little harm, as Steven Jones makes clear:
*************************************************
Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity. This was confirmed by analysis of the post-impact vibration of WTC 2… where the damaged tower oscillated at a period nearly equal to the first mode period calculated for the undamaged structure.
(NIST, 2005, p. 144; emphasis added.)
*************************************************
http://physics911.net/stevenjones

First of all, it wasn't 10,000 gallons. If memory serves, 10,000 gallons is what the jet would have had if it had had a full tank. It had considerably less then a full tank. Second of all, most of it was used up during the initial fireball. Steven Jones quotes Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST, who stated: “The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes.” (Field, 2005)

http://physics911.net/stevenjones

 

How does that paragraph support the claim that fires did little harm? The buildings did manage to stay up for quite some time and due to that thousands survived.

No a 767 holds over 20, 000 gallons. It is estimated that 10, 000 gallons was ejected when the planes crashed.

Wrong again. The estimates I have read were that 1500 gallons were burned inside and 1500 gallons outside with the initial fireball.

Even if most of it were used up in the initial fireball, don’t you think that fireball might have caused some problems inside the building?

It may not be a slow burn but the jet fuel was enough to very quickly get an extremely hot, raging fire going over many floors. The contents of office buildings are not fireproof and 8500 gallons of jet fuel is enough to get an inferno going. If you splashed one of gallon of jet fuel around an office you could probably get a nasty fire going.

 

This is your personal belief. Trading opinions and beliefs are not going to move this forward.

they did not have access to the steel that was no longer at the scrap yards.

it is a fact that steel had been recycled before Astaneh-asl and his small team were ready to start their inspections.

it "sounds like" you want to dismiss this data in order to protect your belief. There are many witnessess to molten iron in the basements and in the cleanup operations. molten iron thermite residue was found in abundance in the dust - the molten iron in the dust was a major marker used to identify wtc dust from background dust.

he says this too:
"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.
Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.
The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.
''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''"

www.tinyurl.com/3j5cbj

Would you agree that if traces of explosives are found, then there is no need to speculate which columns were cut, how the explosives were detonated etc, if our intention is to determinte whether explosives were used?
If you find traces of gunpowder or traces of RDX it is not necessary to find out what gun was used, what columns were cut, what detonator was used. A discovery of explosives is enough to know that explosives were used, do you agree?

 

Thinking about it, I believe NIST is saying that the jetliners did little harm to the building. Clearly they think otherwise of the ensuing fire, where they imagine more heat then their own models show, ignore steel conduction properties and possibly mistake refracted light for bowing columns. (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html)

My apologies. In the past, some had assumed that the jets were fully loaded and I assumed that 10,000 was the fully loaded mark.

Not sure if I was mistaken, but FEMA and NIST definitely believe so.

You're referring to the (older) FEMA estimate (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm)

NIST, however, brings that estimate down to 20% of the total, or 2000 gallons.
(http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/VisualizationAidsWTCTowers.pdf , page 3).

Let's assume that NIST's estimate of only 20% being used up in the initial fireball is correct; alternate theory believers seem to have little problem with accepting this assumption. Their problem is with their imagined heat. 9/11 Research puts it this way:
*************************************************
Imagined Heat

The Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.

Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140)

The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That's consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF). How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF).
*************************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#exaggeration