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

Thermate TH3, yes. Also known as Super-thermite (just look at the url), nano-thermite and even Nanostructured Super-Thermites (take a look at the first url).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because it isn't your work. Summarize it, and support with key sentences.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

geoff - seems to me you operate with double standards.
Is this a discussion or an interrogation?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not at all. Having seen "Loose Change", I suggested Scott view "Screw Loose Change" for the alternative viewpoint. He refused to do so, claiming it was "hopelessly biased".

So who's the one with the double standards again?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The evidence for a demolition does not stand up to any scrutiny.

No. It did not collapse in a manner consistent with a demolition. With the usual conspiracy theorist rationalization you just adjust the story and say that it was a demolition but just an unusual one.

Have I got this correct? Are they saying that because it collapsed in a manner unlike a demolition then that is actually suspicious and more reason to think there is a conspiracy? If so, that would be a new level of stupidity.

Why is that a surprise?

..A 110 story building pancaking.

The estimate of 600,000 seems excessive. http://www.911myths.com/html/explosive_force.html Picture middle of the page.

So if the building had collapsed perfectly in its own footprint then that would have been suspicious. Instead the collapse was a mess and pieces went everywhere so the creative conspiracy theorist decides that must be mysterious instead. These pieces that were ejected are completely consistent with the pancaking theory.

 

I got a few minutes into that film and couldn't take any more.

The first claim is that no plane was found which is not true. There were many plane parts found.

The next claim was that the first testimonies taken talk of a missile or a small plane. This is also untrue. They then try to support this with testimony, mostly taken later on, that doesn't actually describe seeing a missile at all. There is a comment were someone was surprised that the hole was small, some comments where people said it sounded like a missile, someone who described it as a smaller plane than what it was, more comments that it sounded like a bomb going off, carefully selected photos blah blah. No one described seeing a missile and those couple who described a smaller plane were not at the pentagon and not in a good position. This is the usual pathetic tactics we have come to know from the CTs.

As usual they don't even have a theory. By taking accounts out of context, and ignoring the hundred+ who described the plane accurately, they are trying to imply that it was a missile, even though no one actually describes seeing a missile, or even a smaller plane - though these comments are from people who were far away or saw it out a window. Then there is the humorous implication that bombs were again involved.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So was it a missile or a small plane? Which sad theory are they going to run with? Trying to push both is somewhat contradictory but hey these people aren't bound by the constraints of logic or reality.

Scott you need to learn to apply critical thinking and stop being so gullible. Just because something is on the internet doesn't make it true.

 

So if was a missle...or another aircraft..what happened to AA flight 77?..and the people and crew onboard?

 

You shut up, Mac, you spook you! Mean old government agent! Don't think we're not on to you!

 

...wait.

So I'm not the millionth visitor to all those sites?

 

It's so brief it needs no summary. It also includes some good illustrations of the WTC buildings. But if it's too much trouble for you, let it be.

 

I'm not asking you to shoot through a movie length film. Just to read a page. Believe me, I've read through many 'official story' type pages.

 

Ok..I'm coming out of the closet. I'm actually 3rd henchman to the Lizardoid cabel himself.

So I'm curious...why my master would change his "M.O." and switch from planes with the WTC to a missle to attack the pentagon? Wouldn't that be dangerous? What it one of those hundred or so eye witnesses actually snapped a clear pic of the missile, wouldn't that give up the whole gig? Terrorists don't have US missles. And why would my master use a missile anyway? Wouldn't a fully loaded 757 full of fuel do as much if not more damage? It would also mean getting rid of a large aircraft and 300 or so people in a covert way. Too much extra effort for no apparent benefit. Master needs to study "Occam's Razor".

 

I agree that it seems strange that they didn't just use the plane. But if you've ever seen those simulations, perhaps you might consider one thing; just how close to the ground that plane had to go; it's already been said that the supposed pilot was awful at piloting. Instead of getting a super duper pilot, it would have been much easier to just send in a missile and there is lots of evidence that that's what happened.

 

It doesn't take a great pilot to almost hit the ground.

Why would they risk exposing the entire plot by using an US missile? If ANYONE had snapped a cell phone pic of the missile...they whole gig would have been up. It's much much easier to use a plane. Plus you never answered what happened to AA flight 77 and the people on board.

 

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.

Not in a manner of a usual demolition, I agree.

There's a lot of evidence, but you don't see too interested in that. Anyway, I asked on the loose change forums concerning what your geomorphologist friend said. Here is their rebuttal:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=144208&t=663014

They're saying that the way it collapsed is inconsistent in some ways with usual controlled demolitions. I personally find that it makes it look even more like a controlled demolition, because instead of everything falling inwards (someone who didn't know much could be led to believe that the columns were weak), a lot explodes outwards, thus making it seem clear it was an explosion. Seriously, for me the pictures say it all.

I'm guessing it's further evidence of controlled demolition.

Alright, you hold on to your pancaking theory.

You mean this?:
**********************************************
No bombs – no 600,000 pound beam flying over 390 feet and piercing into the other building.
http://www.gallerize.com/WINDY_TOWERS_OF_9-11_1.htm
**********************************************

Link is dead.

Both point to controlled demolition. The only thing is that one is an unusual controlled demolition. A steel frame building has never pancaked and the few decrepit buildings that have certainly don't happen the way the WTC buildings collapsed. From what I've seen, the pieces that were ejected were certainly not consistent with the pancaking theory, but if you believe you have a link that proves otherwise, by all means present it.

 

The FBI arrived within minutes to snap up 84 vid cam videos that have yet to see the light of day. Any camera could have been similarly snatched I would imagine. MacGyver, don't you ever wonder why it is that they don't let us see those 84 vid cam recordings?

I remain unconvinced that it's easier to use a plane. And as to the 77 people on board, I believe I have heard a theory that they were brought down elsewhere. But then, there is a lot of suspicion that the supposed people who were on many of the flights weren't in fact on them at all. There's so many things to investigate and no one's paying me to do this.. which means that my time on research is limited.

 

So why use a missile? Why would the planners of the attack use planes against one building and a missile against another? It doesn't make sense...it adds complexity for no reason. Why add so much more to worry about unnecessarily? Using a missile means having to create a cover story that has to be covered up.

I don't know what was on these 84 vid cam videos. Chances are...they don't show much.

So you don't know what happened to flight 77. If people weren't on the flights...where did they go? We have the flight manifests...we know who was on the plane...did the Lizardoid cabal just make 60 or so people disappear?

 

Possibilities:
1- Missiles can hug the ground easier then planes.
2- Missiles can penetrate further then planes.

I'm not sure, but I believe the first thing investigators try to ascertain things like what, where and when. The where and when we know (atleast in terms of the buildings). The what of it is debated hotly. Next, how it happened. Once these are ascertained, the focus shifts to things like why.

If it happened, there must have been a reason. Lack of evidence of one is not evidence of its lack.

I think you mean making a cover story and covering up the real one. In any case, as I said, the why of it may still not have much to go with. This is why I'm focusing on the 'what happened' part of it for now.

I suggest you to take a look at this article:
http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm

Here's a little excerpt from an interesting article on it:
**************************************************
In addition, I had just discovered Black Op Radio earlier in the year and found an interesting show in their archives (# 156) on which Ellen and Mr. Berg appeared as guests. This may be the single biggest point concerning 9-11, and hopefully the last nail in the coffin of our government's lies. During this broadcast, Mrs. Mariani said that she was the only relative of all the passengers that died on Flight 175 that crashed into the South Tower. Her lawyer, Phil Berg, repeated this statement.

I listened to this show over and over again and couldn't believe what she had just said. Everything came together at this point. That’s when it dawned on me that not only had our government lied about the physics of 9-11; they may very well have taken it one step farther by faking the number of people that died that day. I believed what she and Mr. Berg had just said. Nothing about 9-11 made any sense. Why should it start now?
**************************************************
http://www.wingtv.net/thornarticles/911passengerlist.html

 

Obviously, your listening to bias sources again.

Here are some actual people who died on the flight...and they had families:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/12/victim-capsule-flight175.htm


So what happened to all these people:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/12/victim-capsule-flight77.htm

 

Cute theory? I don't think you are in any position to be patronizing when you are touting a movie as stupid as 9/11 Mysteries.

The aluminum wrapped around the facade of the WTC and was a very lightweight material. Much of what you think is steel in pictures of the collapse is actually aluminum.

That's pretty funny since earlier in the movie, she described the collapse of the WTC as an "implosion", then she contradicts herself later in the movie with the above quote.

Yes, that's because of the falling debris and due to the fact other buildings were very close to the WTC. It's worth noting that if there were any explosions in the WTC that would be consistent with a demolition, then ALL windows would be blown.

That's what makes this propaganda movie so stupid... Fire didn't hurl the metal outwards... the building did. 110 stories of building were collapsing, and the perimeter columns would have buckled and sprung outwards... especially the aluminum coating which was lightweight by comparison.

There is no way that chunk of steel is 600,000 pounds.

Even if it was 600,000 pounds, what makes you think that standard demolition materials would have been capable of such a thing? Demolition explosives focus a lot of energy into a tiny area of the steel, and when it explodes, it slices through the steel rather than blowing entire steel columns hundreds of feet away. In either case, there would be an immense explosion heard for miles. This is why demolition experts do not think the tower was demolished on purpose.