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

Thanks, thankyou everyone!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(imagined fan audience throws granny panties at geoff)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Guys, enough. I did it. It wasn't all that hard either.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It was the Jews!!!! You heard it here...!!!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

LOL!!!! So... CC...just to clear things up...which Black ops part of the US govt were you working with?

 

This isn't Cheski, this is his cousin Moohammed Mahmood Allu Akhbar Barukh Hoo. Don't confuse us.

 

Well..I figured y'all get blamed for everything else...why not 9/11?

 

I actually don't doubt for a second that there's a muslim named that.

Moohammed Mahmood Allu Akhbar Barukh Hoo

=

Muhammed Muhammed God is Great Blessed is He.

 

I must admit this is the first I've heard of all of these tests. I can certainly believe that it could be another NIST type venture; pages and pages of spurious data. I wasn't the first to review the NIST data; experts such as Steven Jones did; I simply followed his and others' train of thought and found it to be logically consistent. So perhaps one day Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan or someone of their calibur could look through the reams of pages in the document you link to. In the meantime, however, I think I'll stick to the evidence I already know, including a lot of things I didn't know brought up in 9/11 mysteries.

 

Laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. If that were the case, we wouldn't be talking about it all after more then 1000 posts.

 

Stick to the evidence you already know? What? You plan on not learning anything else? What??

 

When did I say it was necessary? I simply assumed you were interested in knowing who was responsible for 9/11, but if you're not interested, by all means, you can just hop off this thread.

What are you trying to convey to me here?

I also believe that the pentagon wasn't hit by a plane. In any case, if I can find the blueprints, I'll let you know.

The main problem is that there is so much evidence that the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition.

It would take longer to demolish the building and perhaps most importantly, the amount used would have to be a lot more, thus taking a lot more time to install. NIST loves making this point, but fails to address things like thermate and/or nanothermite entirely.

There you go, putting in thermite again. In terms of the nanothermite/thermate and perhaps other explosives, most 9/11 alternate story believers would say that it did go off that day.

If you really want to see a convincing argument, I suggest you see 9/11 mysteries, part 1- demolition:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871

There's tons of points in there that back it all up in that 90 minute film. If you're really interested in seeing my arguments and more all working together, I think you should atleast take a brief look.

 

In magic tricks, it's called misdirection. The idea is that if you can get people to look in the wrong direction, they won't see things happening somewhere else. Like certain powerful authorities doing suspicious things before 9/11.

Look, of the alleged 19 hijackers, atleast 9 of them are still alive:
http://www.welfarestate.com/911/

And this is only one piece of the 'official story' that's in tatters.

As to who was involved in the actual execution of the attacks that unfolded on 9/11, I've already listed various potential contenders. But first, people have to start looking in the right direction; they have to stop thinking that planes could possibly have brought down the towers and start looking at what did bring them down: explosives. Then we can look with more determination at the people who likely put them there.

I admit I'm not sure here. To tell you the honest truth, sometimes this all feels like I'm being asked to explain every detail, when the vast majority of evidence already supports the claim that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

Not that I'm aware of. But most importantly, from all the evidence I've gathered, on 9/11, the fires before the collapses were relatively small and not a threat to the structural integrity of the WTC buildings. Again, I urge you to take a look at 9/11 mysteries.

 

I actually don't mind some of his posts. I think he makes me think of what I've said and even do some more research at times. This doesn't mean I'll necessarily respond to all of his posts and I'm sure he feels no obligation to do the same either. I think the most important thing here is that in a very real sense we are dealing with emotional things. Essentially, if someone wants to believe (or disbelieve) something, people will have a tendency to discard potential evidence that doesn't fit their world view and cling to potential evidence that does.

Nevertheless, it's not black and white. A person may not want to see the truth, but if you keep on putting it before their eyes, they may start to question their views. I think the main trick is friendly repetition. I remember reading about a study on dreams; how there was a man who made mistakes in his life but couldn't consciously recognize them. However, his dreams would constantly be trying to show him his mistakes in subtle ways. This is what the researcher who was studying him felt. I think all of this goes far beyond dreams, but into our every day lives and our every day interactions as well.

The thing that Geoff and others here have done for me is that they've widened my understanding of just how much evidence you have to bring to the table when it comes to issues such as 9/11. Perhaps one day I'll decide that I can't dedicate any more time to this forum to do this. But until that point, I seem to have gotten to a point wherein I can keep on bringing information up in the hopes of changing certain people's opinion as to what happened on 9/11/01.

 

You really are a piece of work, aren't you?

Here, I present you with evidence that is independent of NIST and the American government. These tests took place well before 9/11, so there can be no baseless claims of an agenda here. It is a scientific persuit to test the effects of fire on steel structures.

Your slanderous comments that they falsified their data are moronic.

In my view, you have now sunk to the same level as Ganymede.

 

I plan on looking at information that is understandable to a layman and that has preferably already been commented on by an expert I feel is trustable.

 

I'm not saying they falsified their data. Taken by itself, I'm not sure why they got the results they did. I also don't trust them and people I do trust (Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan) haven't said anything about it yet. The movie 9/11 mysteries, part 1- demolitions, on the other hand, seems easy to understand and logically consistent. Have you seen it yet?

Kenny, you frequently won't even -look- at my links unless I post an excerpt, so you're not one to talk about looking at all the evidence.

 

And I'm trying to point out that the scenario you've constructed is unnecessary. Why not just put bombs on the planes? Similarly, I assumed you were interested in knowing who was responsible for 9/11, but if you're not interested, by all means, you can just hop off this thread.

That it makes no difference if the gel polymer is an actual good insulator. That wouldn't be the point of putting a nanothermite polymer there in the first place, would it?

You're a "no-planer", eh? Well, the evidence illustrates handily that a plane did hit the Pentagon. I don't know what else to say. If your standard of evidence is not sufficient to accept a plane impact, then what exactly can we honestly argue about?

But there isn't. Steve Jones won't let his samples be evaluated by anyone else. Gas fires themselves apparently melt steel, routinely or uniformly exceeding temperatures necessary for steel to lose 50% of its support strength, and probably more like 75%. Both buildings were unquestionably hit by planes - yet the Pentagon had to have been hit by a missile? Why? To what end, over a plane? These are the logical inconsistencies that trail after the entire 9/11 Troof Movement, like a wad of toilet paper stuck to a shoe.

Frankly, I have no idea how long it would take to install nanothermite in gel form to ensure a proper demolition. It might even require more time than simply slapping a regular thermite charge to a girder, for all I and you know. But you fail to address my question as to why explosions were heard in all the building floors but the collapse only occurred around the impact site. How would the explosives have preferentially survived there? Why did none of the other charges bring down the building? Why did they all go off? None of the theories make any sense. Why not just put explosives on the plane? But when I ask you this, you infer that I'm just not interested in who did it. I'm keenly interested in who did it, but I just don't happen to agree with you.

No, absolutely not. I regret to say that I cannot, in good faith, do so.

I have asked you repeatedly to view "Screw Loose Change", which responds comprehensively to the original...'documentary'...Loose Change, and you have refused outright to do so. Why should I take the time to acceed to any of your requests if you have no similar respect for mine? You claim to be on the search for knowledge; yet, you refrain from anything that might affect the singular object of your pursuit.

Hoping to hear from you in better faith,

Geoff

 

I know what misdirection is. I want you to explain which fire was meant to draw away attention (really, the Lizardoid cabal is exceeding themselves if they can now control the direction of fire) and from what exactly. Lay out a timeline. Walk the uneducated through it. Lead us to the light, Scott.

This is, in scientific matters, what we call a complete falsification.

This is the "superceding" report from the BBC about their error in reporting hijackers as alive:

This wraps up the entire "hijackers still alive" theory. I swear, I'm called upon to reiterate this one so often, I should set up some automatic text.

Oh? Who are they? Why do you list them?

In other words: first people have to stop asking you to support your conclusions and accept your story. Then you can pillory characters of your choosing, with the mass of the population backing you.

I believe this is what is called a mob. So:

NO.

NO, it does not. Your points have all been refuted in considerable detail, and you have yet to explain the one central problem with your wished-for conspiracy:

Then let me - yet again - educate you:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/04/4318_fuel_tanker_mel.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/truck-fire-melts-bridge/2007/04/30/1177788022254.html

Shall I assume you will not review these sites in your endless quest for evidence?

GeoffP

 

"Trick" does seem an apt word.

 

Clearly you don't understand your use of the word "spurious". I've proven to you beyond a doubt that steel temperatures can closely match the temperatures of the fire around it. Accept it. You have been debunked on this issue, so you don't get to repeat your lie.

I haven't seen 9/11 mysteries, but I've seen some of the more hilarious excerpts from it which makes it even more ridiculous than Loose Change. Pyroclastic clouds? LOL! Volcanos? LOL! Clunkity clunk?LOL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5ajQGecJQw

I'm pretty sure this was the idiot that mentioned the Star Wars death ray from space as well.

I recommend this movie be watched in conjunction with debunking material:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

I am not going to be convinced by truthers, because I have long since read all of their claims and have long since seen it debunked. The conspiracy theory fails to stand up to the facts. The fires weakening the steel is a good place to start, you claim it couldn't have been weakened by the fires, but you have been shown that it was not only likely, but inevitable.