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

Dude...the load is not just isolated to that floor...none of that area had any support. The area that collapsed first was just the weakest link in the chain.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Inside job!
Just stirring the pot

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No need. The constant refrain of "free fall!" still rings in my ears.

Of course, those fires weren't insignificant, and neither was the kind of damage the planes inflicted.

There simply isn't, Scott: this is false.

And how much damage did the fires do in terms of carrying strength of the steel? This is a salient point that no 9/11 Troofer, to my knowledge, has ever tried to meaningfully address.

To you.

Thankyou; my point is handily illustrated. Why in particular would any individual government worker have any reason to so paint events?

Well, there we are. One is free to cast about aspersions. Who am I likely to be working for? The Lizardoids! You claim this was some tenuous association, but the subtle meaning of your argument persists.

Then I wish you the best of luck and enjoyment of the weather.

By all means, if you like. But that's not the point: the point is that the story continually evolves and changes. First nanothermite is good enough for the job - and I don't recall you mentioning other explosives, Scott, prior to this last round of posts - and then other explosives must have been involved. Or it must have been a mini-nuke. Later, it will be that it must have been an orbital lazer. It must have been an FAE. It must have been aliens. it must have been the owners, or the janitors, or the Jews.

...because it must have been a conspiracy.

Not so? Because these are assumptions that keep being laid about; the new Disciples preaching from the book of Circulus in Probando.

And I have done. But you don't acknowledge the hits, so what is there to say?

And so I have done. But you refuse - still, I assume - to investigate evidence that damns your hypothesis too strongly. Gasoline fires melting steel, the impossibility of horizontal steel cutting with thermite, the simple issue of the temperature in the Towers and the point at which steel loses 50% of its strength, or the entire film of Screw Loose Change - none of these meet your interest because they undermine too well what it is you're trying to do.

I will repost the link to SLC a final time. I hope that you will find it of interest.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

I also attach a link to the refutation of "9/11 Mysteries"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

Best regards,

Geoff

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, and from David Ray Griffin himself - having been challenged on his book's Amazon page by the guys at http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ - an admission that his work may have suffered from not being correct:

It's not too late, Scott.

Geoff

 

Thanks, M..

But this shore ain't no pot that needs a stirrin'....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No. Jet liners severed many of the supports, damaged others and knocked the fireproofing off the steel. They did more than 'little harm'.

Refracting light? From photos on different angles. Come on.

I don't know, or trust, where you got that from but it is irrelevant when we have Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl looking at twisted steel estimating that it must have reached temperatures near 1000C and we have had NIST estimates for years that there were pockets around 1000C.

Once again, I gave you a link to a bridge that collapsed from the fire from a crashed gas tanker. I gave you a link to a toilet paper factory where the steel supports buckled during a fire.
Again you mention a test where the steel didn't go over a certain temperature but for the fifth time, that is irrelevant when there is no mention of the temp of the atmosphere. You have been given several tests where the steel temperature reached near 1000. You ignored these because they are damaging to your religion.

 

And I have shown you tests were steel in office fires reached over 1000 degrees within 40 minutes (I forget if it was C or F) which was very close to the atmospheric temperature of the fires.

So once again you are going to have to admit that you are either mistaken, or you are lying.

What is a "mini nuke"? I imagine that even a low yield nuclear weapon would be catastrophic. Once again you are making claims before demonstrating feasibility.

Well I was anticipating you bringing up the name of one or two demolition experts. However, I'm talking about consensus. Consensus is important. If 99% of civil engineers, and demolition experts at the top of their field do not have suspicions about 9/11, then you are shit out of luck.

The guy in the above video agrees with the "official story" about WTC 1 & 2, but for some reason he seems to think WTC7 was demolished. Stranger still, he didn't even know this building was from 9/11 as he watched it collapse.

The bottom line is that he retracted his statement. You have no proof whatsoever that he was threatened or paid off by any of these fictional people who are in on it.

I am not impressed. Every demolition expert in the world (apart from that Dutch guy it seems) watched those towers come down just like you and me, and all you can do is find a handful of them that agree with you.

 

Ah the ducking and weaving done by the conspiracy theorists. Firstly the claim is made the the steel was not investigated and was spirited away. Then the claim is that experts like Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl missed all the critical pieces because they were all gone.

When pointed out that it's not quite the case the claim then becomes that he had so much steel to analyze that he couldn't do it properly.

 

Nukes? Come on Scott, really?

I shouldn't be surprised as you were convinced by the missile thing.

 

gasoline fires do not melt steel. if that were the case your engine would melt and there would be no point to building expensive blast furnaces that require raw oxygen.

I thought this was a science related board, can you show scientific argument for your claim that gasoline melts steel?

 

<sigh> This tired, old song again...:bugeye:

It didn't have to melt the steel, just weaken it. Which it did.

 

The necessity of the steel having to melt or not is not the issue being discussed.

The fact that you use this tired old strawman misdirection technique indicates you want to avoid the issue at hand, or perhaps you completely misunderstand the issue? It seems you are happy to accept the statement by Geoff that "gasoline fires melt steel" without challenge, so perhaps you could show using scientific argument whether the statement is true or false, or is your forte limited to word sleights?

 

What's the matter now? I agree that the weakening of the steel is a more conservative and justifiable position, of course, and frankly it is all that is required to refute your faith in some 9/11 conspiracy or other, for which reason it is roundly avoided by Troofers.

But what am I to make of the evidence that uncontrolled gasoline fires (not in an engine, which is a different case, obviously) melt steel?

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

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

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL

:shrug:

By the by, are you completely sure that the heat of an engine couldn't melt the pistons, say, or even the block in certain circumstances?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Maybe if some company specified something or other about piston melting in a warranty, perhaps.

http://remanufactured.com/Shortblock_engine_and_cylinder_head_warranties.htm

 

Apparently it isn't. I fail to see how one could call this strawman. Do you mean in that it detracts from your preconclusions?

Now that you have been challenged, could you do me and the masses of expectant Troofers standing behind you the favour of addressing this point? It would be a most welcome change.

Best regards,

Geoff

 

I'm not limited at all. But the REAL truth is that all of you 9/11 conspiracy nuts aren't limited by physics OR facts - you are quick to accept anything at all that you believe will support your claims. (Thermite burning horizontally or at an angle, mini-nukes that leave no radiation behind, etc.)

 

those are journalistic accounts. The tarmac asphalt would have melted no doubt, but where is the evidence for the steel melting?

 

What I'm trying to get across to you is that the floor that collapsed was perhaps the -strongest- link in the weakened chain. The 95th and 96th floors were much more heavily damaged. Therefore, if any of the floors should have collapsed first, it should have been one of those 2. Ofcourse, not even those floors should have collapsed, but since I haven't persuaded you guys of that yet, I can atleast try to persuade you guys that floor 98 definitely shouldn't have been the first floor to collapse if the cause was the airliner collision and ensuing fires alone.

 

That's about 10% of the steel, so he didn't even look at 90% of the steel.

 

"ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here <the bridge>, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees (Fahrenheit). And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders <at the bridge>.
I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

 

Ahem! You've yet to explain how he could have seen steel melting when he didn't even arrive at the scene until more than a week later.:bugeye: