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. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    For the third time, that figure is meaningless because there is no mention of the atmosphere temperature. In other tests where the temperature of the atmosphere was comparable to 9/11 the temperature of the steel went over 900C.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2033838&postcount=1118
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm

    The steel weakened due to the fire and the bridge collapsed. It's an important fact and your refusal to see this makes you come across as a religious nut.

    No not quite the opposite at all. Like most conspiracy theorists you have done a few minutes research at your favorite sites but have not made the effort to understand what you are reading. The Madrid Tower had a concrete center that kept it standing after the steel collapsed. The WTC did not..
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Yes, but the 5000 dead in Iraq are maintaining the US's grip on Iraqui oil (atleast for a little while longer anyway) and giving the US government the muscle to give out juicy contracts to the likes of Shell. What would killing more people on 9/11 have accomplished? If the disaster was big enough, I think it would have affected these inside jobbers negatively as well.


    In terms of a bomb, I'm not so sure about that. In terms of the frozen smoke, I believe it was done, but it had to be done in the building:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2034696&postcount=1146


    The bomb or pod beneath the plane thing is something I only took seriously recently. However, even more recently, I've decided that that claim may in fact be false.


    I can certainly imagine that that's what it was meant to look like. However, there has been a lot of evidence showing that the planes did minimal damage to the structure. However, as I've already mentioned, there were certain upgrades on most if not all of the floors that initially collapsed. Here is a post detailing this:
    http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=44231&t=99915


    I doubt the 'lizardoid cabal' could break the laws of physics. Thank goodness we have a physics professor like Steven Jones to remind us of these laws.


    I'd love to. Unfortunately, I don't have the resources to do this. The real question is, why hasn't the -government- tested for these things? Ofcourse, if high level government officials were complicit in all of this, they wouldn't want to test any of this, now, would they? There's a lot of evidence that suggests that the very people who are dimissing claims that nanothermites were used at the very people who know so much about it. Don't you consider this a little odd?

    Kevin Ryan goes into a little more detail in his article "The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites". Here's the introduction to his article:

    **********************************************************
    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 (Douglas 2006, Ryan 2006, Gourley 2007). But despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials.
    **********************************************************
    http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/nist_thermite_connection.html
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    The following ones:
    **********************************************************


    Steve Watson / Infowars | May 17 2006

    The FBI is withholding at least another 84 surveillance tapes that were seized in the immediate aftermath of the attack on the Pentagon.

    There is an ongoing lawsuit to get these tapes released via the Freedom of Information Act. The FBI has admitted in a statement to attorney, Scott Hodes, representative of Mr Scott Bingham who runs the website http://www.flight77.info/, that they have these tapes, that they have already analyzed them and are still keeping them under lock and key.

    A great deal of speculation has surrounded reports that on the morning of september 11th, 2001 the FBI visited two private businesses near the pentagon and confiscated several security camera video tapes.

    The first is said to be the Cigto gas station with several security cameras aimed in the direction of the pentagon. Flight 77 flew directly over the gas station at an altitude of roughly 50 feet, less than 3 seconds from impact.

    Three months after 9/11 The National Geographic and others reported on this, publishing short interviews with the gas station owner, Jose Velasquez.
    ************************************************
    http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    22,087
    It would have accomplished the enviable position of not having a bunch of ex-teens storming out of Urban Outfitters and into the street with their "Inside Job" signs every time a roadie flipped on a movie camera.

    OK, so no bomb on plane?

    I - ah! Oha! Ahooha! Dodge, duck, dive and dodge.

    I'ts really better if you post your own words on this.

    Hehe. No, your point was more that they used careful planning to avoid the building falling sideways, not that Captain Controlled Demolition saved physics for all the little Troofers on the 9/11 Day that evil nasty Mr. GrinchBush was going to steal all their placards. The laws of physics would hardly be broken by a sideways fall.

    Answer me this: would you believe anything they reported anyway?

    And does Kev explain why explosions were heard all over the building...I mean, assuming they still were in the Troofer paradigm, which switches targets more often than Oceania during the Two Minutes' Hate...but only the impact site collapsed? And have you watched any more of Screw Loose Change?
     
  8. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    The site you're citing has no doubt, seemingly, that an airplane was used. He has parts and eyewitness reports. So why again don't you believe a plane hit the Pentagon?
     
  9. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/catastrophicterrorism-foreignaffairs-1198.pdf
     
  10. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I disagree. But I've decided to link to a different post, one that is specifically focused on the topic at hand:
    http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272

    Placards? And I'll have you know that I left my teens 13 years ago (almost 14 now). Little troofers indeed

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Anyway, I believe I've already addressed what you were addressing now.


    If it made sense and they had a good track record of trustworthiness, sure.


    The link I gave above is the best theory I've seen so far. Once again:
    http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272


    I'm going to try to get the transcript. I find it easier to read erroneous text then watch an erroneous documentary...
     
  11. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    You forget that some of the debris did fall off to the side. The reason they did fall off to the side is mostly due to the fact that the tower was not collapsing at free fall speed. So this could be legitimately called the path of least resistance. However, most of the debris was directly falling over the top of the footprint, and each floor could not deal with the excessive loads and damage that was pounding down from above.

    Even though it looked and sounded nothing like a regular controlled demolition?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKxl6H-iJxM

    Remember also the 10 story apartment that collapsed due to fire? Remember how it collapsed at almost free fall speed? Was that an inside job too?

    Well then stop invoking a planet when we are talking of skyscrapers.

    This is somewhat true, but mostly false. Firstly, it's true that the designers said it was like a mosquito mesh with regard to a plane crash, and this is exactly what happened on 9/11. The towers did not collapse as a result of the plane crashes. It was a contributing factor of course, but ultimately it was the fires that softened the steel. I guess the designers didn't imagine the consequence of fires on the building after a plane had hit it.

    It was precicesly because of the way the WTC was designed that it fell. I don't believe there has ever been a serious fire in a skyscraper that resembled the WTC "tube in a tube" design. Comparing it to the Madrid tower is like comparing chalk and cheese. The Madrid tower had a concrete core and the WTC didn't. The steel around the madrid tower collapsed, the rest of the tower stood largely thanks to the concrete core.

    I have never heard of a pancake collapse being used to describe buildings that fall to the side. The whole point of a pancake collapse is that one floor falls on top of the other all the way to the bottom.

    You are completely wrong on this point. I think you mean to say "skyscraper" instead of "building". I already showed you video of a 10 story apartment building collapsing due to fire, and I'm also aware of other examples of buildings collapsing due to fire.

    But it's true that no skyscraper collapsed due to fire. But serious fires on skyscrapers are very rare. So rare that truthers can only point to a few examples of a serious fire in a skyscraper.

    So you think the 'conspirators' wanted to have it collapse into its own footprint to preserve life and other buildings? Hang on a minute... you claim they are demolishing 267 floors of office space whilst thousands of people are still inside the building.

    I was under the impression that most demolitions are of the footprint variety. So I don't get the "only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it" quote.

    In reality, the real difficulty would be demolishing a 110 story building and making it look like it wasn't a controlled demolition. Since demolition companies around the world do not believe it was controlled, truthers are going to explain how it could only have been controlled.

    Because the floors below gave way before it's momentum could tip it over the side. Thus the path of least resistance was straight down once the floors beneath buckled.

    No, it's not what NIST would like me to believe, it's what the entire civil engineering and also the demolition industry have consensus on. I hold their word infinitely higher than your idiotic ramblings.

    You know, I've already proven that the fires were hot enough to buckle the steel, you have not proven to me that "super-thermite" even exists... let alone that it could be implemented in a practical way to destroy a 110 story building.

    One of the videos that did capture what hit the Pentagon revealed an object to the scale and colour of AA Flight 77. We could even make out the tail fin.

    I will return later to shit all over this video.
     
  12. Ganymede Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,322
    Day after day, week after week, month after month. So I take you didn't get hired?
     
  13. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    More like exploded to the side:
    ************************************************************
    The horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of feet and the pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, provides further evidence for the use of explosives — as well-explained in http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html. (See also, Griffin, 2004, chapter 2.)
    ************************************************************

    http://physics911.net/stevenjones
     
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
  15. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    Yep, I did. I start tomorrow.

    Not that it will prevent me still coming on and debunking your lies.

    I think you are thinking of the aluminium coating of the steel perimeter columns. These are the things which were seen flying through the air for hundreds of feet, because they are a light weight material. The collapse would have forced them outwards as would have been carried to some extent by the wind.

    I have. In office fires, I showed how the temperature of steel can almost reach the temperature of the fires. You simply had nothing to say about it.

    The latter url describes a regular thermate mixture. The former doesn't tell me much about how it could destroy a 110 tower. Can you yet show me any kind of thermite/thermate/superthermite which can cut through a thick steel beam remotely and horizontally yet?

    Why won't Steven Jones carry out a simple experiment like this?

    These last two urls are troofer ramblings. Therefore I can not take it seriously.
     
  16. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Cute theory, but I think you should take a look at the 9/11 mysteries film. Particularly these minutes:
    *****************************************************
    20:31 Now let’s look at the collapse of the Twin Towers:
    20:44 We are seeing explosions, rather than implosions -- a first in demolition history. A
    sequenced rumble becomes a roar as debris is thrown outward:
    20:59 The damage is not contained. Even the windows are blown from neighborhood
    buildings.
    21:07 What kind of energy enabled this? Would fire hurl metal and concrete sideways into the
    air?
    21:15 Here, a 600,000-pound chunk of steel (twice the weight of a Boeing airliner) was flung
    400 feet, wedging itself deep into Three World Financial Center on Vesey Street.

    21:31 A FEMA photographer taking pictures of Ground Zero wondered why so MANY steel beams were jutting from neighborhood buildings. What shot pieces of the towers all the way across the street?
    *****************************************************
     
  17. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Debris being ejected out the sides while the building is collapsing isn't something you see in a controlled demolition is it? Clearly it wasn't a perfect, demolition style collapse was it?

    Instead of acknowledging that the collapse did not resemble a controlled demolition the conspiracy theorist will just add this to the list of silly theories.
     
  18. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    A collapse flinging steel does not demonstrate explosion. What happens when you bend a card and let one end slip? I have a friend who works in geomorphology. He tells me that collapsing slopes pulverize rock into dust all the time. Not a big shocker that a falling building would do the same.

    Hey, congratulations! Nice.

    See card point above.

    I'm sorry, but no.

    Well, your comparison is against a crowd for whom the story keeps changing. It's bombs on planes, it's not bombs on planes, it's thermite, it's no plane at the Pentagon, it's a hologram (!?), it's aliens, I saw Elvis' face in the smoke.

    No. You cannot simply info-bomb the thread. You need to post cohesive thoughts and cite them.

    You should watch the film instead. It addresses each Change claim in turn.
     
  19. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Many theories have been put forward, but there are some core theories and people who explain them well that have far more strength then others. Nanothermites/Thermate THC 3/Superthermite (it's all the same) seems to be the one the most prominent experts seem to be focusing in terms of the WTC buildings.

    The other one that I believe is fairly strong is the 'no plane at the pentagon'. As to the rest, anyone can come up with a theory, official or unofficial. The real issue is the evidence that backs it.
     
  20. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I'm asking you to read a page of text, complete with some very informative illustrations. You seem to have no problem doing so when the text is mine. I don't understand why it's so hard for you to do when it's someone else's.
     
  21. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Based on what? Some vague reference to someone who mentioned four poles being knocked down instead of five?
     
  22. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    It was certainly an unusual demolition. For starters, normal demolitions start from the bottom, as happened in WTC 7, not from the top. But it's not undoable. Other oddities are expressed in 9/11 Mysteries:
    ***************************************************
    20:31 Now let’s look at the collapse of the Twin Towers:

    20:44 We are seeing explosions, rather than implosions -- a first in demolition history. A sequenced rumble becomes a roar as debris is thrown outward:

    20:59 The damage is not contained. Even the windows are blown from neighborhood buildings.

    21:07 What kind of energy enabled this? Would fire hurl metal and concrete sideways into the air?

    21:15 Here, a 600,000-pound chunk of steel (twice the weight of a Boeing airliner) was flung 400 feet, wedging itself deep into Three World Financial Center on Vesey Street.

    21:31 A FEMA photographer taking pictures of Ground Zero wondered why so MANY steel beams were jutting from neighborhood buildings. What shot pieces of the towers all the
    way across the street?
    ***************************************************
     
  23. scott3x Banned Banned

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

Share This Page