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

Not sure. You may want to check on their credentials yourself to find out, though.

Again, you'd have to check the site.

You may want to investigate their claims a bit more before offhandedly dismissing the concerns of more then 520 architects and engineers. I certainly didn't dismiss the claims of NIST or FEMA; I dealt with them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes yes keep going with the excuses and desperate rationalization. You tried to use an offhand comment as evidence but, after a more thorough investigation, there was no evidence of evaporated steel so you just then just assume everyone is lying. Just like the Christians who think dinosaur bones are just a test, nothing (intelligence, reason, evidence) will get in the way of your faith.

Ah Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, again. He explained what he meant in another article but you probably ignored it as you ignore anything that might ruin the conspiracy. He made it clear that he was not referring to molten steel but very soft steel.

Where are these photos of molten steel?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Every time I have mentioned it I have said 'allegedly' or 'if we are to believe' because he may be wrong. But you have not demonstrated that this is the case. You have just assumed that by labeling him as a debunker you can ignore his efforts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No you have no critical thinking abilities whatsoever, you are gullible, you believe anything you read as long as it’s a conspiracy site because you really want to believe in the conspiracy.

Do not compare your actions to those of a good scientist. A good scientist would be skeptical and try to falsify what they were looking at. You genuinely believed that the US would hijack one of their own planes, kill the inhabitants and then fire a missile into the pentagon instead, meanwhile knocking over poles, throwing plane parts and bodies around to make it look like a plane did it. You only left this one to jump on to the equally absurd theory where they fly the plane away and set some bombs off and hope no one notices the difference. You believed these things because a conspiracy site said it was so.

lol scientist.

There are many witnesses who disagree with him.

There are accounts on these lists which he does not include. Why not? Even a quick look and there are people who mention the light poles which are not on his list. Why not?
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm
http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0082_b_They saw the aircraft.htm

Perhaps you could explain why his list is different to this one, which is a summary of the above and was actually taken at the time of the event.


104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.
2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.


Even if, for the sake of argument, there were only thirty who saw it hit then how do you account for that then?

The one thing that is consistent through all the recorded testimony - a large plane hit the pentagon.

 

I watched a lot of the first video of theirs which made it clear to me that they were ignoring the testimony of the people who saw it hit because it didn't fit into their beliefs. They had a desire to find a conspiracy so, in their heads, they found one.

Actually it is a detail and it is outweighed by the many many accounts which contradict these convenient, dubious claims.

 

Why do you keep talking about summaries? I am talking about news reports. Because the details of these reports are damaging to your conspiracy you discard them and pretend that it is only the NIST report that matters. It is a dodge.

As I mentioned the NIST report references relevant fire tests where the temperature reached nearly 1000C.

 

I'm not talking about whilstblowers who would have insider information of a cover-up. I'm talking about the consensus of science as a whole as they watched the events the same way you and I did.

This means nothing. It is a conspiracy theory website.

I want information of how thermite can remotely cut thick steel beams from non-conspiracy theory websites (aka a reliable source). Or if it's from a conspiracy theory website all they have to do is set up a test.

After having heard all the bullet points of the 9/11 truther manifesto, demonstrating the feasibility of thermite in cutting a steel beam so as to collapse a building is not amongst them.

So how can NIST test for such a thing when they don't even know how it could be done? Truthers can't come up with a test even though they have a vested interest in the matter, so how would anybody else?

I have long known the bullet points of the A&E website and have long since disregarded them just as the scientific community has.

You can't compare a NIST report which is supported by 125,000 civil engineers to a kooky conspiracy website with 500 or so "experts". Lots of people can call themselves an engineer, but does that mean they have any expertise relevant to 9/11?

 

Can't you READ.

I said ignore the SUMMARIES.

Go to the 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report. That is supposed to be the OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT explanation. You can download it off the net. The news media has space to fill every day.

Can you build a 110 story, 1360 foot skyscraper without figuring out how many TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE to put on every level? Do any of those articles have that information? Well the NCSTAR1 doesn't have it either. So they are all BULLSHIT.

Don't you have the brains to figure out what information is necessary to solve a PHYSICS PROBLEM this simple? Why don't we have the relevant data to solve this problem after SEVEN YEARS?

psik

 

So you are just going to pretend that those reports don't exist. ok.

 

I assume that by 'offhand comment', you mean Dr. Barnett's comment made to the New York Times"? The Dr. Barnett that was a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute"? The one who was "part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the [9/11] attacks"? Here's the article in case you have any doubts as to who said it and to whom:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...AA15752C1A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

But perhaps you mean that all the -physical- steel evidence has been destroyed? -That- is apparently true:
http://wtc7proof.blogspot.com/

I'd like to think that this would cause you to be concerned, but I have a feeling it won't.

 

I'd argue this analogy works more for official story believers then for alternate story believers. An -official- investigator tells the New York Times there is evidence of evaporated steel? And then all the steel being destroyed afterwards? "God did these things to test our faith!"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What else would we be talking about? It is the only reference to evaporated steel in the whole WTC story and it is a story somewhat contradicted by the later reports from the same man and his team.

The temperatures needed to evaporate steel are ridiculous and would have actually left some evidence but all you have is a strange comment from an investigator which is basically contradicted by their teams own conclusion. You don’t have anything.

The laughable situation here is that I will say to you, ‘so why did they come to a conclusion that had nothing to do evaporated steel?’ and instead of understanding that there wasn’t actually evaporated steel you will go “hmmm yes very suspicious”. That’s the catch with conspiracy theories. When there isn’t evidence that is actually more evidence for the conspiracy!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That same investigator later released a more detailed report saying that the maximum temperatures were 850C. That was the bit that was the test of faith..... and you passed with flying colors nanoscott! Just pretend the report doesn't exist and cling on to the comment.

 

Alright, let's take a look at this 'other article' again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And a good video with some stills (and some video too):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A

As far as I know, all the photos are from the twin towers area, not from the WTC 7 area; as I've mentioned previously, they seemed very keen to destroy all the steel from WTC 7 quickly; This would suggest that they didn't want people taking pictures of molten steel as well.

 

You are still dodging my questions. How do you know that is molten steel and not aluminum from the planes? You don't, you just have faith.

I'm still not sure if that is molten metal and not the sun shining on the orange brown dust because the fire truck is driving straight for it.

 

That same investigator later released a more detailed report saying that the maximum temperatures were 850C. Oh wait that was as test of your faith.[/QUOTE]

No, that was to restore it. Could you link to the section of the report where Dr. Barnett says this? I can certainly imagine that it's true, but I'd just like to see it with my own eyes.

In any case, although the steel was rapidly removed and destroyed, the FEMA investigators did manage to do a little bit of investigation before this happened. Here's some of their results:

****************************************
“Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA’s volunteer investigators did manage to perform “limited metallurgical examination” of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA’s report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence. 1

The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused “intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.” The New York Times described this as “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon. A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges–which are curled like a paper scroll–have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes–some larger than a silver dollar–let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending–but not holes.

FEMA’s investigators inferred that a “liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur” formed during a “hot corrosion attack on the steel.” The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it “susceptible to erosion.” …The “deep mystery” of the melted steel may be yielding its secrets to investigators not beholden to the federal government. Professor Steven Jones has pointed out that the severe corrosion, intergranular melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of thermite arson. ”
****************************************
http://hidhist.wordpress.com/terror...to-fire”-the-final-911-mystery-is-not-solved/

 

To find Steven Jones' in a peer reviewed journal, one need look no further then this:
****************************
Thank you for visiting The Journal of 9/11 Studies, a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal, covering the whole of research related to the events of 11 September, 2001.
****************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/


And ofcourse the article I had mentioned that began this little discussion:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm (search for "Jones")

 

If the building was destroyed by fires alone, yes. If the building was destroyed by thermate arson, no.

Indeed. Ofcourse, the strongest evidence, the steel itself, was destroyed. What we have left is a statement from one of the lead investigators, who you claim now claims that the steel did not reach a high enough temperature to evaporate the steel. If he is indeed now claiming this, it really does get one to ponder: why did he apparently change his mind? And why was all the actual evidence destroyed? Could it be that the evidence clearly revealed something that certain individuals are trying to keep under wraps?

 

How many different reports are out there?

Which reports specify the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers?

I have got NCSTAR1 burned to DVD. I am not downloading every report on the WTC.

But ALL SKYSCRAPERS must hold themselves up so the designers of all skyscrapers must determine the weight and strength distribution. So why don't the reports have that info if they supposedly explain a gravitational collapse?

psik

 

A good question; I don't yet know; as you may know, I haven't put nearly as much attention to the pentagon witnesses as to the WTC building collapses.

As you probably know, I greatly respect 9/11 Research; I use its information extensively. As to your question, I don't yet know.

This source is also quoted in 9/11 Research, and so I also give it credence. Again, would have to look into it.

Looks like a good source. Again, must do 'further research'. I was thinking of just playing WoW for a few minutes but then thought, no, should respond to this first.

Can you link the source of this 'summary'? This is the list I am fairly skeptical about.