WTC Collapses

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by scott3x, Nov 14, 2008.

?

How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

  1. Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

    18 vote(s)
    43.9%
  2. Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

    9 vote(s)
    22.0%
  4. Allah!

    2 vote(s)
    4.9%
  5. People keep flogging a dead horse!

    12 vote(s)
    29.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    .
    There are 10,000 pages. Can it all be totally wrong?

    It says there were 200,000 tons of steel. Oddly it doesn't really explicitly say that is the total for both towers. But then it doesn't give a total for concrete. Obviously those people are not consistent.

    Then they tell us the towers were originally designed to have 14 types of wall panels but only 12 were used. If only 12 types were on the building what good does it do to know about the 14. It gives the impression of thoroughness and attention to detail. But then they don't tell us the number and weights of each of the 12 types. Like this makes sense?

    Obviously the NIST data must be approached with caution and analyzed without regard to what THEY CLAIM it means.

    Supplying us with that deflection and oscillation information information without supplying the vertical distribution of mass but saying it is important in analyzing the impact in ONLY one location is certainly schizoid.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

    psik
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    It was NOT NECESSARY for Professor Steven Jones to have been in the debris field on 9/11.

    In order to find unreacted explosives in the dust, it is only necessary to analyse the dust in a laboratory, any scientist or other person with a modicom of intelligence who isn't a liar will confirm this for you.

    Professor Jones has several different dust samples which he has analysed with other scientists.

    Unreacted high tech explosives were found in the wtc dust:
    please watch through to the end, it is only 7 minutes:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iPfiUHtvYI&feature=related

    NIST did not test for explosives or incendaries. Here are NISTs words:

    12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

    NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    That's correct, i don't believe things that I don't agree with.
    That's incorrect, I still don't believe things I don't agree with, (21 scrabble points awarded for wordplay though).
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    believe whatever you wish headspin.
    the fact remains that you people have not provided a single credible witness that was refused access to the debris field nor have you provided a single credible witness that will say they found unexploded bomb debris.
    it's that simple.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2009
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    .
    But they found the remains of only ONE filing cabinet so there must not have been any others.

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1lado_melted-metal-filing-cabinet-at-the_events

    In TWO 110 story office buildings. YEAH RIGHT!

    But look at what was left of that filing cabinet. What the hell could do that?

    psik
     
  8. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Thanks Headspin

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    This conveniently sidesteps an important issue- what good is being given a tourist trip of the debris, after FEMA removes a bunch of it beforehand? You've got to properly analyze it as well. NIST fully admits that it didn't test the steel for thermite residues. It's given some lame reasons for not doing so, which Robert Moore has effectively countered in his paper Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1.


    There's atleast one credible witness that gave Steven Jones the sample he tested for thermate residue. Did you check out the video Headspin provided? It's really good stuff. Here it is again:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iPfiUHtvYI&feature=related
     
  10. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    I already did in post 1398
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2148282&postcount=1398

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/restrictions.html

    maybe you didn't click the reference link and see this:

    "The Giuliani administration started to send World Trade Center steel off to recycling yards before investigators could examine it to determine whether it might hold crucial clues as to why the buildings fell. The full investigative team set up by FEMA was not allowed to enter ground zero to collect other potentially critical evidence in the weeks after the attack, and it did not get a copy of the World Trade Center blueprints until early January, a delay House members found infuriating."
    ...New York Times

    http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/nyt_mismanagementmuddle.html
     
  11. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2009
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    in order for this statement to be valid you must show that people were denied access to the debris field.
    NIST wasn't the only investigators crawling over that pile scott.
     
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    what does this have to do with denial to the debris field?
    access to the debris field was available to people.
    the cameramen from camera planet was on site THAT VERY NIGHT.
    so don't tell me people were refused access.

    the site was swarming with people from all over the US the next day.
    everyone from investigators to cops to firemen and construction workers.

    don't you find it a bit odd that the only person to claim denial to the site is steve jones's man?
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2009
  15. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    You are making no sense whatsoever, it is clear now you are just trolling, so i will ignore you from this point.
     
  16. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the truth hurts doesn't it headspin?
     
  17. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Sigh. Personally I don't think you're a troll and no, I don't think that Headspin is reeling from the official 'truth', but rather not understanding what you meant and concluding (falsely, in my view) that you must therefore be a troll; he may have suffered burnout, I've burned out from this place in the past myself (I go play World of Warcraft on such occassions

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ); I don't understand what you're saying either leopold. I'm guessing you might be referring to 9/11 Research's well researched "Access Restrictions" article. But 9/11 Research is a creation of Jim Hoffman, not Steven Jones.
     
  18. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Ah, camera men from camera planet were on site THAT VERY NIGHT? Wow. How silly of me to think that many had access restrictions, that one anonymous photographer even had his images deleted and threatened with arrest if he went back to the site. Imagine. Cameramen. THAT VERY NIGHT. From camera planet. Well, thanks for setting me straight there leopold

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I can easily imagine that you'll never actually check out 9/11 Research's well researched article, so I decided I'd take matters into my own hands and provide an excerpt:
     
  19. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I already mentioned the one example where a man had his digital camera images deleted and threatened with arrest if he returned. But aside from that, there's a big difference between 'tourists' taking a look an an investigation team. One could perhaps argue that it was indeed a crime scene and there -should- be some restrictions. But when there are absurd restrictions on the -investigative team-, that's when you really have to start wondering if perhaps it's more then just a lack of coordination, but rather some highly placed individuals (Rudolph Giuliani, for instance) who don't -want- there to be a proper investigation. Thus, the fast removal of the steel with little real analysis done on it, -especially- in the case of WTC 7, and yes, not allowing amateurs to take a look but -much- worse, not even allowing the investigators to do a proper job.
     
  20. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    I have never seen them discussed at all. Unknown does not equal thermite though. I guess the default answer is always thermite until a debunker comes up with one (which will be derided anyway).





    Your moronic comment here is a dodge. You have dodged it every time. How do you account for the comments made by Astaneh? You know… the guy you try and quote when you think he supports your conspiracy fantasy. He commented on seeing steel which had become very soft from the heat which he estimated around 2000F.


    What the hell are you talking about? We are talking about Astaneh’s comments. He found no evidence of explosives but found evidence of temperatures high enough to weaken the steel.

    "If you remember the Salvador Dalí paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted -- it's kind of like that. That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot -- perhaps around 2,000 degrees."
    http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i15/15a02701.htm


    ‘Explosively bent’? Explosions don’t just weaken steel. They shatter things with force.



    More meaningless spam intended to somehow distract from the subject that Kevin Ryan was not involved in the testing of steel assemblies.

    Spamming his text doesn’t increase his qualifications scott.

    None of those things make him an expert on the steel. Your religion is stopping you from comprehending such a simple and small point.


    You have been shown many examples of steel weakening in a fire that some vague and disingenuous reference to a test with ‘essentially no fireproofing’ is not good enough. Perhaps in your mind it is.


    .5 inches of fireproofing is not ‘essentially no fireproofing’. How was the test set up? What are the details? What didn’t collapse? What were the temperatures?

    In the Cardington tests the unprotected column started buckling when it reached 670C.
     
  21. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Silly examples aside, the point at hand is that you think is that when discussing a particular article, any criticism of that article can be responded to by posting the article again. Can you not see how stupid that is? It completely circular. You go on about civil discussion and yet you don't actually want one.

    You need to do this because you aren’t actually able to defend or back up the articles that you post so you just keep spamming them.


    No one is convinced that you are able to assess Mackey’s writing yourself. You just spam the same criticism from 911research over and over.



    I don't think you even know what we are discussing. You just throw the ‘as Steven Jones made clear’ for good measure.


    The workstation tests did not involve testing steel for collapse scott.



    Steel is only at about 50% of it’s strength at 600C scott.

    Yes never the mind the CONCRETE CORE!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    Ignoring evidence without even commenting four times is a little suspicious don’t ya think scott?


    The last test was fueled only by office equipment......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!







    Which tests are you talking about. Explain to me without cutting and pasting.



    The collapse alone would have removed some. Think about it scott. You see explosives and megasuperdooperthermite as the instant answer for everything.


    But as usual you are trying to deflect from the point at hand. You keep mentioning tests by UL done on complete fireproofed assemblies. Not relevant.


    An office fire is an office fire.

    In the Cardington tests the temperature of the steel was only marginally that of the atmosphere. You guys refuse to accept this.

    I can't believe you are still saying this. Kevin Ryan saying something does not constitute evidence. What are you doing at a science forum?
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2009
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    a full 15 days AFTER 9/11 happened.
    plus, banning photographs IS NOT the same as banning people.
    anonymous? yes indeed. if you want the truth about 9/11 scott then you can't play the "anonymous" crap.

    regardless, you haven't shown that people were denied access to the debris field.
    you haven't shown that uneploded bomb material was found in the debris field.

    about headspin,
    if he wants to get all bent out of shape over an error on my part then that's HIS problem, not mine. i already told him i couldn't view the video.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2009
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i've finally been able to view this video.
    nowhere does this man say he was at the debris field, nowhere does he state he was refused access to the debris field.

    if this man was so sure that these "red chips", which we have no idea where they came from by the way, was some kind of incendiary device then why does he wait untill 2005 to publish his findings?????????

    the above video does nothing to prove reliable witnesses was denied access to the debris feild nor does it prove unexploded bomb material was found in the debris field.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page