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
    The evidence isn't clear, per se, but it certainly isn't 'ridiculous' either. It's taken years to get to this point, wherein we may be approaching a critical mass of people who question the official story. You're right that no one can buy out all the media. You may have noticed, however, that there are some media outlets (such as blogs and truther sites) that are very concerned indeed regarding what happened on 9/11.

    Believe me, if I thought this issue was like most, I wouldn't put so much time into it. I really do hope that Obama wins the U.S. presidential election, but I can't be bothered to focus any real time in that discussion because I think this is far more important and will continue to be an issue regardless of who wins the presidential election on Tuesday.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    No plane hit WTC 7 at all; and yet, it collapsed demolition style as well (that one didn't even bother to go from the top down, but instead followed the traditional bottom up demolition). There is also evidence that the planes did negligible damage to the structural integrity of the twin towers.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2008
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Ah, true. I wish I could do the types of calculations Steven Jones did for WTC 7 for the twin towers, but I can't. In any case, 'air pushed downwards' theory sounds a lot like NIST's 'piston' theory. The first link I mentioned refutes this theory handily:
    ***************************************
    NIST's final Report on the Twin Towers mentions the piston theory to attempt to explain away the ejections:
    The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos.

    There are several problems with this explanation, which we designate the piston theory.

    * The squibs contain thick dust of a light color, apparently from crushed concrete and gypsum. But these materials would not have been crushed until the pancaking floors above impacted the floor emitting the squib. Thus the dust would not be produced until the air was already squeezed out, so there was no source of the dust for the squib.
    * The squibs emerge from the facade 10 to 20 floors below the exploding rubble cloud inside of which the tower is disintegrating. The thick clouds appear to contain the pulverized concerete of the floor slabs, which was the only concrete component of the tower. But the piston theory requires that the floors have already pancaked down to the level of the squib, making them unavailable for the production of the concrete dust more than 10 floors above.
    * The piston theory requires a rather orderly pancaking of the floor diaphragms within the intact sleeve of the perimeter wall. Such a process should have left a stack of floor diaphragms at the tower's base at the end of the collapse. But there was no such stack. In fact, it is difficult to find recognizable pieces of floor slabs of any size in Ground Zero photographs.
    * The North Tower exhibits three distinct sets of squibs at different elevations of the building. Each set is visible as two distinct squibs on the same floor, one emerging from about the horizontal center of each of the tower's two visible faces. This pattern is is far too focused and symmetric to be explained by the piston theory, which would produce similar pressures across each floor and over successive floors.
    * The pancaking of floors within the perimeter wall would have created underpressures in the region above the top pancaking floor. But we see no evidence of dust being sucked back into the tower.
    ***************************************
    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Yeah; there are mainstream alternative theories and then there are more marginal theories. The mainstream theories are from noted authors, such as David Ray Griffin and Jim Marrs, as well as scientists such as Steven Jones.
     
  8. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    If that were true, I would -not- spend so much time here. I'd spend most (if not all) of my time amoung fellow truthers, in the many such forums available. Instead, I have actually gotten a few over here, most notably Headspin. The problem with staying in those forums, in my view, is that you aren't challenged enough; preaching to the choir is easy; debating in this arena isn't.
     
  9. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    There was plenty of evidence for explosives:

    "Eyewitness Reports Of Explosions Before WTC Collapses"
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/eyewitness.html

    "9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and Explosions in the WTC"
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html

    "9/11 Rescuer Saw Explosions Inside WTC 6 Lobby"
    http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/911-rescuer-saw-explosions-inside-wtc.html

    "Theories that Distributed Explosives Destroyed the Twin Towers "
    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/explosives.html

    "How Strong Is The Evidence For A Controlled Demolition?"
    http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse update/
     
  10. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    How can there be evidence of that when the towers collapsed?

    If the towers and building 7 had not collapse the aftermath would not have changed anyway. Except the idiots making money off it would not have an industry to hawk books and dvd's or web sites or play film (mockumentaries) maker.
     
  11. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    Wow, so much bullshit since I last checked here.

    Because of 2 major problems with the demolition hypothesis. Firstly:

    They could not figure out any practical method for remotely detonating thermite and holding it in place with the steel so that the steel is destroyed. Even truthers have never shown how this is supposed to be possible.

    Secondly, we have to lack of sounds and lack of blown out windows which rule out conventional demolition explosives.

    Steel was inspected and Headspin gave us all an url which unwittingly proved him false. The expert investigated the steel and told us how it was warped and twisted which would have been in keeping with fire in temperatures stated by NIST. Office fires can and do reach temperatures up to 1832F, and with the aircraft piling up combustable materials to one area, it burned verociously at this temperature.

    That is not a scientific arena any more than a creationist website that has the names of people with Ph.D's. They have to pass peer-review beyond their biased website.

    Yes, assuming all the peices are connected.

    What does this have to do with impact from a 500 mph 767 or fire at 1800 degrees?

    Haven't you watched the video on YouTube of a 10 story apartment building collapsing to its footprint at near free fall speed due to fire alone?

    I'm pretty sure that information is already out there?

    We know about the perimeter colums, the core columns (which weren't part on the initial collapse), the floor trusses, the thickness of concrete etc.

    Then how come I can not find any disagreement in the scientific community about anything regarding the WTC? Sure you can point to conspiracy theory websites, but I'm talking about science.

    Wow, halt the front page!

    Oh wait, it's a fact even though no explosions were seen or heard? Or that even though people in the clean up operation had experience cleaning up demolished buildings, they found no remnants of any kind of demolition materials?

    Buildings that are demolished typically go BOOM... which didn't happen on 9/11.

    If the facts pointed to demolition, science would say it was a demolition. They are not saying it was a demolition. It's only morons like you say that. Mostly men in their 20's with no qualifications in anything.
     
  12. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    It's only obvious to people who listen to the information they receive with a truly open but questioning mind, who are prepared to believe that the U.S. government could do such things and who are prepared to do some serious research.


    Only one theologian that I know of has picked up on it. You claim that the plan is ridiculous and in a way I agree; but then, terrorists of any nationality aren't exactly known for their rationality. However, if said terrorists had connections to U.S. politics and the military, the risks could be mitigated and the advantages would be significantly larger if they could get away with it. As to the complexity, I do believe that -that- part was quite necessary; if the plan had been too simple, I believe a lot more people would have figured it out by now.


    I have no evidence to disprove it, but the only evidence I've seen in its favor is the site I've shown you and possibly another one I saw a while back talking about tritium levels, which is something that is used in the initiation of fission bombs at any rate:
    "Tritium is widely used in nuclear weapons for boosting a fission bomb or the fission primary of a thermonuclear weapon."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium
     
  13. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    1) If conventional demolition explosives were used on WTC7, where was the BOOM?

    2) If thermite was used, then please explain how thermite can remotely cut thick steel beams.

    Until you can justify these two problems, the raging inferno in the WTC7 will just have to be the best explanation.

    Understood?

    Thought not...

    You know that big hole which cut many perimeter and core columns? Tore up floors, removed fire proofing and on top of this had extremely hot fires weakening the already damaged building?

    There's your loss of structural integrity right there.

    I say we replicate these conditions and fill the tower with truthers like you and see if you would feel safe in this building. It wouldn't collapse... right?
     
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    No. But considering the fact that architects and engineers tend to know quite a bit about what would cause a building to collapse, I think their site is certainly worthy of mention.
     
  15. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    That is how people become brainwashed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I must admit I had to laugh at that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . And at the same time, it makes me rather.. angry if true.
     
  17. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
  18. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Was that thermite, nano thermite, super nano thermite or was it steel eating termites?
     
  19. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    The mainstream truther argument is that the towers were brought down by explosives.

    Here's some articles on the negligible effects of the plane on the first tower to be hit:
    *****************
    Second Clue -- First Report of First WTC Crash: The second clue comes from the first New York eyewitness on NBC. She had no question about what she saw. You could hear it in her voice. If she was the state's witness, the defense team would have their heads between their knees before she stopped talking.

    What did she say? She heard an airplane coming in low and looked up. She saw a small private jet, and watched it fly into the first WTC tower, the North tower. She was certain in her description -- most people know the difference between a big round-nose commercial jet and a smaller plane.

    *****************
    http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/publicaction_bumble.html

    And this one:
    ************************
    Observe that we have a hole in the tower which is approximately the size and shape of a 767, indicating that the alleged large passenger jet punched decisively through the building. Also observe that we have no wreckage significant enough to be identifiable.

    The combination of these two factors is a forensic proof that it can not have been a plane of that size, as I shall explain shortly.

    ************************
    http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=79


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Um.. not quite.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2008
  20. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    You don't have to publish peer reviewed papers in order to make knowledgeable arguments on a subject. I think that architects and engineers might know a thing or 2 about what would and what wouldn't make a building collapse, don't you?
     
  21. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Where did I say conventional explosives were used? As to evidence that it was a controlled demolition:
    *********************
    Observing the collapse of 47-story WTC 7 shows it to have all of the features of an implosion engineered by controlled demolition.

    * The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).
    * The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.
    * Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.
    * The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.
    * The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.
    *********************
    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/demolition.html
     
  22. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    yes quite so.
     
  23. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page