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. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    The entire scientific community, nevermind the civil engineering community or demolition community say otherwise.

    Does this not in the least bit cause some doubt in your mind? The conspiracy is so perfect and so vast that it includes a supreme majority of independent experts?

    Also, we should distinguish between 'building' and 'skyscraper'. I can show you a video from YouTube of a 10 story apartment building collapsing due to fire in almost free fall fashion.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I believe I have now. voyager, you may want to look at the -quantity- of messages I've been responding to and how in depth they frequently are; many times, I don't just pop links out of my favourites bar; I've got to look for a lot of them. In essence, I can only go so fast.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    At a high enough temperature, yes it does (no idea what that temperature might be, but I think the temperatures that were observed just might have done it). However, no one (as far as I know) is claiming that they saw any evidence that this occurred.


    Your guess is as good as mine

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    As I've mentioned before, they are somewhat dependent on the government looking on them benevolently and giving them permissions to do buildings and such. Nevertheless, while they may not generally be vocal supporters of the alternate 9/11 theories out there, I certainly haven't seen a big list (or any list) of structural engineer supporters either. You have one handy or is it simply your belief that most structural engineers support the official 9/11 story?


    Could be. I haven't bothered to look through the 500+ list, but if you'd like to, be my guest:
    http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

    (you don't actually have to sign the petition to see the list).


    Very funny

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . I'd argue that it's actually the official story believers who are being misled, ofcourse...


    Which comment was that?


    The freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses. I was taking a look at the term 'peer' in wikipedia; the first entry was:
    "A member of the peerage, a system of honours or nobility in various countries"

    Now, I know that in America, 'nobility' doesn't quite exist anymore per se, but let's be honest; if anyone fits the bill for american nobility, politicians and the mainstream media barons would certainly qualify. And yet, it is these very groups who are accused of malfeasance in 9/11. Surely you see the potential for a conflict of interest in spreading the truth for them if they were guilty?


    I'm trying to make it clear that this is a guy who -has- been published the creme de la creme of mainstream scientific publications; that is, when the issue wasn't as controversial and politically dangerous as his views on 9/11. But as I told Kenny a while back, it took scientists about 50 years to realize that man made global warming was the real deal. So perhaps it'll be a while yet before many if not most scientists realize the real perpetrators behind 9/11. I'm curious: do you think that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman? Many now have doubts on that one, but some still believe that old yarn; there was a big comission on that one too, ofcourse. Back in the 'good ole' days', I believe that not so many people read though (no internet for one).

    Here's a good quote for how things were done back then:
    *******************************
    During the Kennedy Administration, Dulles faced increasing criticism. The failed Bay of Pigs Invasion and several failed assassination plots utilizing CIA-recruited operatives from the Mafia and anti-Castro Cubans directly against Fidel Castro undermined the CIA's credibility, and pro-American but unpopular regimes in Iran and Guatemala that he helped put in place were widely regarded as brutal and corrupt. The reputation of the agency and its director declined after the Bay of Pigs Invasion fiasco; he and his staff (including Director for Plans Richard Bissell and Deputy Director Charles Cabell) were forced to resign (September 1961). President Kennedy did not trust the CIA, and he reportedly intended to dismantle it after the Bay of Pigs failure. Kennedy said he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds."[3] Ironically, Dulles was later appointed to the Warren Commission, the official government investigation of the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
    *******************************
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Dulles

    And another good read, from Michael Rupper's "From the Wilderness" page:
    *******************************
    There's a quote often attributed to Allen Dulles after it was noted that the final 1964 report of the Warren Commission on the assassination of JFK contained dramatic inconsistencies. Those inconsistencies, in effect, disproved the Commission's own final conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone on November 22, 1963. Dulles, a career spy, Wall Street lawyer, the CIA director whom JFK had fired after the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco - and the Warren Commission member who took charge of the investigation and final report - is reported to have said, "The American people don't read."
    *******************************
    http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/zbig.html

    Thank goodness we live in more enlightened times these days, where many prefer to spend more time reading, offline and on, then catching soundbites from television. Don't get me wrong, I like television, but I certainly don't trust it as a news source.
     
  8. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Actually, it's a question, which I see you've decided not to answer.


    Ok, you stick to your ps and qs. Personally, I don't think justice for the deaths of the 3000 people killed on 9/11 and the indirect deaths of thousands more as a consequence of that da should have to wait for the truth to go through the 'recognized process'.


    Post excerpts that you feel are important to your points if you wish, as I do. There's only so much time I have in a day and I'm not going to read what I assume will be fallacy rich material just for the heck of it.

    I'd argue it's more the other way around. I wouldn't post it again if I felt you'd understood the message the first time.


    If you feel you aren't making progress here, you are free to leave this discussion.


    I admit I can neither prove nor disprove what you're saying. I'm not a physicist or an engineer of any type, after all. However, is what you're saying supported by any of the official story voices, is this something you got from some guy somewhere or is this wholly of your creation?


    I would argue that that's not the case; that when it looks orange, it's actually simply the reflection of the container from which it's being poured from. In the WTC building, we never see any 'container' of the molten metal, it simply goes down as yellow/white and -stays- so all the way down.


    NIST's explanation of office materials has been handily debunked. I remember a recent one with the idea that it could have been other metals; I haven't seen that particular possibility disproven yet, but perhaps soon.
     
  9. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Actually, I'm not implying anything in that article; I'm quoting someone (Jim Hoffman) who is outright declaring that the NIST report is contradictory in certain regards. If anyone is cherry picking, it'd be the author of the quote in question, but I would argue that far from doing so, he's legitimately pointing out a contradiction in the NIST report. The article in question does need a little mental sleuthing. I'll break it down. First, let's start with the opening statement made by Jim Hoffman:
    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.

    This could be said to be his thesis.

    Next, he goes about making his case. First, he quotes a section of NIST's report:
    "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)

    He quotes that section to make it clear that what he states next is coming from NIST's own report:
    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).

    Then, he comes in for the uppercut:
    How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF)., he tells us, and then proceeds to show us that NIST does just that:
    "A floor section was modeled to investigate failure modes and sequences of failures under combined gravity and thermal loads. The floor section was heated to 700 ºC (with a linear thermal gradient through the slab thickness from 700 ºC to 300 ºC at the top surface of the slab) over a period of 30 min. Initially the thermal expansion of the floor pushed the columns outward, but with increased temperatures, the floor sagged and the columns were pulled inward." (p 98/148)

    He further hammers it in, saying:
    Where does NIST get the idea that steel temperatures should be more than 450 degrees Celsius (or 842 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than their own evidence indicates? This passage provides some insight into their experimental method.

    Someone here has argued that clearly, there were pieces of the WTC building that got hotter then 250C. And that's certainly true. The problem is how very -unlikely- those temperatures could have been reached due to fire. I have a very strong feeling that some if not all within NIST were well aware of this and were trying to tiptoe around this fact. Perhaps I'm mistaken and the issue here is that they were speaking only of a certain part of the WTC towers and these were the only samples they knew to be from that section. In any case, the samples they took for this part of their report only show indications of being heated to 250C. Good if you want to suppress evidence that anything but office fires took place, but absolutely awful if you want to prove that the fires took the building down.

    What to do? Simply heat up the test steel to temperatures that mean business. Perhaps they felt that the report was huge and no one important would notice. Just how much fire was poured on to get the desired effects? Jim Hoffman gets the relevant quote from NIST:
    "A spray burner generating 1.9 MW or 3.4 MW of power was ignited in a 23 ft by 11.8 ft by 12.5 ft high compartment. The temperatures near the ceiling approached 900 ºC." (p 123/173)

    Jim Hoffman now closes in for the kill:
    1.9 to 3.4 MW (megawatts) is the heat output of about 500 wood stoves -- that in a living-room-sized space!

    He then sets NIST up, quoting the following section:
    "The jet fuel greatly accelerated the fire growth. Only about 60 percent of the combustible mass of the rubblized workstations was consumed. The near-ceiling temperatures varied between 800 ºC and 1,100 ºC. "(p 125-6/175-6)

    He now delivers the coup de gras:
    Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.

    The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.


    The article goes on regarding other NIST report flaws, complete with some good graphics. You might want to take a look:
    http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
     
  10. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Even if they investigated the supposed 'national security failures', it might shed a bit of light on the whether some of the 'failures' may have actually been planned failures. And if they could just get into the failures of FEMA et all in their failure to give credible explanations for the WTC collapses, for instance, I think we would be making some good progress indeed.


    That just might be true. Nevertheless, I think that -any- investigation into 9/11 that isn't stacked with Bush appointees would be a step in the right direction.


    Yeah, very funny

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . I'm not one to use foul language as a general rule. I can respect Sarah Palin as a person. I just don't think she should be anywhere near the office of the president

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . There seems to be a fair amount of republicans that feel the same way. Honestly, though, I can't say that I think McCain is any better. Who knows, maybe he'd be worse. Personally I'm just praying Obama becomes president; I may be a Canadian, but let's face it, the U.S. and Canadian economies aren't exactly strangers. It's said that when the U.S. sneezes, Mexico catches a cold. I'd like to think that Canada is a -little- more independent, but I don't really want to test this theory anytime soon.


    Sounds about right. And Philip D. Zelikow, who has served in both Bush administrations, was appointed executive director of that commission.

    I found out a few things about Zelikow. First, that he's Jewish. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love some Jews (Natalie Portman, for instance). But I've read enough to wonder if perhaps Israel had something to do with 9/11. Secondly, he is one of the co-author of the article "Catastrophic Terrorism", which was published in foreign affairs in 1998.
    http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19981...rophic-terrorism-tackling-the-new-danger.html

    I once postulated that 9/11 may have been done by elements within the government in order to get 'tough on terrorism'. But I now think that perhaps it's terrorism that the government wanted. Zelikow predicted the following would have happened if the 1993 WTC bombing had succeeded (there is evidence that it, too, was an inside job):
    "...he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, "the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently."


    Anyway, here's some links concerning Zelikow and some others.

    http://www.paktribune.com/pforums/posts.php?t=2548&start=1

    and

    http://www.cambridgeforecast.org/MIDDLEEAST/ZELIKOW-RICE.html
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2008
  11. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I don't have anywhere to burn things, but I'll take your word for it. This is one point that perhaps some alternate theory heavy can answer (Headspin, you there ;-)?).
     
  12. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    There is evidence that some explosives -were- blown up when the planes struck the building, in the basement. Others, somewhat after, and then the grand volley at the end.
     
  13. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Yeah, I did kind of notice that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Thanks, both to you and Geoff. Geoff and you have made my stay here easier; Geoff makes me laugh and you can be trusted to come up with a comment or 2 like this ;-). I also tend to think of Geoff as my primary foil, with shaman coming in second and Kenny as third. Geoff seems to be the calmest of them though, so when he got upset a while back, I packed it in for a bit until that got resolved.


    Yeah, things are pretty good right now; I notice that a guy who just got into the discussion blew his top, but I guess that's to be expected for the unitiated. I think part of the issue is that many don't have the patience to be sleuthing out the issues for months on end and when they see something they strongly disagree with (9/11 is a fairly emotional issue to many) they simply loose it...
     
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Alright, at the very least, it should have made a significant dent in the road then

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .


    No 767s, but I believe that planes have hit a high rise or 2 in the past. Aside from the fact that WTC 7 wasn't hit by any high rise, there is also evidence that the planes made negligible damage to the buildings and certainly not enough to bring them down.


    The WTC fires were not 'completely out of reach'. The main problem were the secondary explosions and that not too much time elapsed before the buildings came down.


    That canard has already been dealt with by Steven Jones:
    *********************************
    4. Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video clip again.) The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos. In addition, the timing between the puffs is less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = ½ gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of the collapse.

    However, the presence of such “squibs” proceeding up the side of the building is common when pre-positioned explosives are used, as can be observed at http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.html. The same site shows that rapid timing between explosive squibs is also common. (It is instructive to view several of the implosion videos at this web site.) Thus, squibs as observed during the collapse of WTC 7 going up the side of the building in rapid sequence provide additional significant evidence for the use of pre-placed explosives.

    *********************************
    http://physics911.net/stevenjones


    Firefighters also described many explosions; explosives are capable of creating quite strong 'winds'.
     
  15. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Well maybe those last 2 links aren't exactly right

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . I don't know. It's not part of the mainstream alternative theories as far as I know, but you never know

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Look, if the matter is important, I won't accept what a JREFer says based solely on his or her own word. If you want to make a claim, attempt to prove it with logic or at the very least show an authoritive source. Anyone can make claims (holographic planes, la-zers, deaths rays, you name it). The trick is to have some evidence or atleast logic to back it up. Anyway, I've now watched 12 minutes for SLC. I think that may well do for another few months at any rate. As I have mentioned in the past, if there's a particular point you'd like to get across that's in SLC, you may tell me to watch a particular minute for something. Other then that, I sincerely doubt I'm going to see the 'not freakin' again' version or any other any time soon.


    Surely you're aware that the military frequently test drives 'future technologies'. You know, there was actually something blown up in New York before the WTC, despite explosives not being allowed as a rule. Paul Isaac, who was dubbed a 9/11 hero, did an investigation on it:
    http://www.mail-archive.com/cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com/msg09508.html


    So now I'm a 'moron'? Look, 7 years have passed since 9/11. Bush is about to walk out of office and there has still been no serious investigation into many things regarding 9/11. If you ask me, they've done a pretty good job of keeping the lid on things. Maybe enough people won't -really- start to question until they're long gone.


    How is it obvious? You clearly still aren't convinced.


    I admit that the nuke theory isn't one of the mainstream alternate theories. But I still consider it a possibility.
     
  17. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Right you are. The thing was this: that's the temperature the steel -should- have been at, if it had only been exposed to jet fuel initiated fires. If, on the other hand, it had been exposed to higher temperatures through by other means (such as explosives, say), it could certainly reach temperatures necessary to twist, melt and even evaporate steel.


    Causing a bit of steel to weaken is nowhere near the same thing as causing the steel within the WTC buildings to weaken sufficiently to collapse.


    I took a look and have now seen it too. Who knows, perhaps a missile was attached to the plane, as some think. As you can tell, however, I'm not sure on this one.
     
  18. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    We are not talking just jet fuel. It is common for normal office fires to reach 1800F with or without jet fuel.

    Well I showed Scott (some 40 pages ago), tests (independent of NIST and the US government, before 9/11) which show that steel reached 1,000 degrees (I forget if it was C or F) in 40 minutes. This was in a structure, not a furnace, and the result of a normal office fire.

    Sounds like a strawman to me. The steel in the WTC was spaced out, and not clumped together.

    Strawman confirmed. Assuming steel is thin enough and spaced out enough and in direct contact with high temperatures, it will lose its strength and easily reach the atmospheric temperature of the fires around it.

    Well as independent tests on steel show, fire can easily weaken steel within that time frame. If you are skeptical, just let me know and I'll show you the url to these tests if you can not find it in this thread. I would, but don't have time right now.
     
  19. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    In the case of leadership of NIST in the WTC investigation, I would certainly agree that they're qualified; the real issue is whether they're being honest. I have certainly found out certain things that have made me believe otherwise.


    I have stated many times that I believe it would only require the top brass to be in on it for it to work.


    Even NIST has let go of the theories for the collapse of the first 2 "peer reviewed" articles there, as Steven Jones' "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" the makes clear:
    http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones

    In the case of the first one, there's even a site complete with a bunch of refutations of its claims:
    http://gamle.indymedia.no/newswire/display/11164/index.php

    The next 3 don't have links.. I think I'll leave it at that for now.
     
  20. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Really? Any of them checked for thermite? Ah yes, that's right, NIST didn't think that was necessary.

    Astaneh-Asl, one of the lead WTC investigators, certairnly wasn't happy with the amount of time he was given to analyze the steel. He was also unhappy about other things concerning the investigation, as I detail in the post I mentioned:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2067319&postcount=1771


    According to who? Gene Corley? I've already made it clear that -his- credibility is certainly questionable.


    Yeah, well those 'pathetic' claims have been badgering the Bush administration ever since 9/11. Here's to hoping he'll leave quietly and that the next administration will be more receptive to a truly independent investigation with teeth and proper financing.


    Despite what debunker sites would like you to believe, there is reliable evidence for such a thing. And yes, I have yet to find a mainstream publication that says so. But this, in my view, only adds to the fact that the freedom of the presses belongs to those who own them. The whistle blower regarding the gag order is auxilliary fireman Paul Isaac. Here's 2 very good articles on the gag order:
    From reporter Randy Lavello, who was apparently the first reporter to hear about it:
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.html

    Paul Isaac repeated his claim on September 11, 2005:
    http://www.wingtv.net/paulisaac.html
     
  21. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    If they are not a bunch of corrupt bastards, why didn't they even check to see if explosives were used? What moron of a scientist would predetermine explosives were not used before even initiating investingations.
     
  22. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    So you think there was office material that would burn as hot as jet fuel? Like what?

    There would still be the 20% oxygen problem.

    So wasn't the fire spread out too. Where in the NICSTAR1 do they have evidence of 1800 deg F. Just claiming something is a STRAWMAN doesn't PROVE that it is one. I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report 20 months ago. I have searched it dozens of time. They have paint deformation tests and microscopic steel analysis and they did furnace tests on floor sections and they have NO EVIDENCE of 1800 deg F and the floor sections didn't fail in the necessary time. The peculiar thing is that they want to claim lack of fire proofing weakened the floors but they haven't tested a floor section without fire proofing.

    That would have been the next logical thing to do.

    But if they did that and it DID NOT FAIL IN TIME then they would have egg all over their faces.

    They have a report where they show the oscillation of the south tower and say it oscillated for FOUR MINUTES after impact and the building deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor even though that was 130 below the impact point. The kinetic energy of the plane had two effects. Structural damage in the impact zone and oscillating the entire building. But in order to compute the energy that did structural damage then the energy that deflected the building must be computed and subtracted. But to compute that energy the distribution of mass must be known. Where is that calculation ever done?

    There are only two places in the entire 10,000 pages where they say the distribution of weight/mass must be known for the analysis. One is about wind design and the other is in a report about shocks to suspended ceilings. LOL

    psik
     
  23. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    Suppose we short circuit all this talk about fire and temperatures.

    Imagine we had the north tower in its original condition.

    Imagine we could magically and instantaneously remove 5 levels, 90 to 94 inclusive. That would leave 16 stories in the air without support. They would fall 60 feet impacting the intact lower 89 stories at 44 mph. Now I think everyone would have to concede that removing 5 stories is more damage than the plane and fires could do.

    Now to analyze what would happen after impact we would need at least have to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the building. How can conservation of momentum be computed without that? So why don't we have a table with such simple information after SEVEN YEARS? Why shouldn't people on both sides of the issue expect the OFFICIAL "WORLD RENOWNED EXPERTS" to provide such simple information?

    A skyscraper must get stronger and heavier going down to support its own weight and resist the wind. Richard Gage's cardboard boxes may give the correct impression for distribution of volume but it has to be wrong for distribution of mass.

    psik
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page