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

Very good points and very nice video.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps someone should tell NIST? It seems as if they're unaware that any of the columns went over 250x... In any case, I certainly think that the temperatures went over 250C. With the help of a little explosives, ofcourse...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What the problem with thermite. i ask since that is in the first few seconds of the lame video.

i guess talking is better than digging ditches or washing cars.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite_welding

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We clearly don't agree on what a conspiracy is, so unless you enjoy debating what a conspiracy theory is, perhaps you can refrain from using the term. I prefer 'inside job' as it is more specific. I and many others believe that explosives must have been used because of all the evidence that this is what happened. As to what explosives were used, it seems there is direct evidence that nanothermite was present in samples from the WTC site, as Headspin's recent video makes clear. He has also said that other explosives may have been used but as far as I know he has not tested for them. As to NIST.. ah NIST. The best it can do is say that they didn't look for evidence of explosives because they simply -knew- that they weren't there. Personally, I think it's more the other way around; they knew they -were- there and were paid not to look.

 

There's a fair amount of evidence that nanothermite was used in the case of the WTC buildings. And if memory serves, no evidence that a gasoline fire ever melted a steel girder.

 

What the problem with thermite. i ask since that is in the first few seconds of the lame video.

i guess talking is better than digging ditches or washing cars.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite_welding

 

You can probably find it in the skidmarks on steves underwear too.

 

That's very funny

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but we're not discussing thermite welding which would use the macro thermite powder with very large particles which people muck about with on youtube.
can you tell me why you think this video is lame:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300WYhC6KQI&e

 

Incorrect. You are attempting to use the results of some tests NIST did to maintain your religion. NIST certainly did think columns went over 250C as there were twisted girders. However in their report they mentioned steel that was tested where only three of the samples went over 250C. It is made clear that they believe that very few of the samples came from the impact area.

Conspiracy theorists ignore that part and claim this proves the steel never went over 250C and therefore a controlled demolition.... even though there were girders which clearly did. :shrug:

 

Forget about steel losing strength; there is evidence that some of the steel -evaporated-. But the fires caused by the jets couldn't have even weakened the steel much, as Kevin Ryan makes clear. Explosives are another matter entirely.

 

Tell me, why do you suppose they didn't get a few samples from the actual impact area?

Yes, clearly girders did.. as I've mentioned, there is evidence that some steel evaporated. The main problem with all of this, from the point of view of the official story, is that the fires caused by the jets couldn't have reached such temperatures.

 

I don't know how thermite burns, but we're talking about nanothermite. Nanothermite explodes.. Explosives tend to go off in all directions I believe.

 

Not quite; floor 98 on WTC 1, and a high floor on WTC 2. But I never argued against that. I'm only saying that there was evidence that explosives went off in the basements of the WTC twin towers before the collapse.

 

As long as you don't mention conspiracy, I won't mention that the government's 'official story' is also a conspiracy. I agree with that you say above to some extent (though I'm not sure I'd consider myself to be a 'proletariat'). But it doesn't take away from the fact that the official story, by wikipedia's definition (the first entry to come up when you google 'conspiracy theory') is also a conspiracy theory.

How do you think what I've said could be considered deceitful?

Alright. But just because you don't recognize it as evidence doesn't mean it isn't.

Speaking of refusal of acknowledgement, there's a floor 98 with your name on it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I have acknowledged that you are correct on some points.

Mr. Ryan simply believes that the official story and alternative stories can both be called conspiracy theories, as do I. And frankly, given Wikipedia's definition of the term 'conspiracy theory', I think that just about anyone could come to this conclusion. Your best point is that a lot of people have come to view 9/11 conspiracy theories as ones that believe that 9/11 was an inside job. But while I can recognize this, you must also recognize that the official story can be seen as just one more conspiracy theory.

 

Laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In life, I think it's best to deal more with the probable rather then the possible. So: I think it's improbable that you and Kenny are government agents. But I won't rule it out because I don't feel I have enough data to do so. I can thus say that I believe you and Kenny are what you say you are. You may likewise think that I am, as you say, duplicitous. But unless you have evidence of such it's not really productive to go saying so...

 

I regret to say that I cannot do so. I will continue to use the term as conventionally applied, and as obliquely admitted to by you and Kevin Ryan.

Leprechauns may also have been used, but he has not tested for them.

Well there's as much evidence of that as any of the rest of it, I suppose.

There is actually no such evidence.

Then your memory does not serve, I regret to say.

What proof do you have of this?

Unfortunately, you have tailored your new theory to fit your initial supposition.

Because you first attempt to pretend that you mean any conspiracy, including that of 19 islamic terrorists, but then cite Kevin Ryan in order to explain that you really mean "inside job". It's duplicitous. If you don't agree, explain how it isn't.

Rather, I recognize its value, which is marginal at best.

I laugh. Which are these?

No. He uses it in context of "coverup"; this is duplicitous.

Now will you admit that steel weakens at high temperatures? Are you able at this point to admit that Hassan Astaneh agrees that the steel lost structural strength from fire?

Have you seen SLC yet? Can explosions cause a tower to lean?

Best regards,

Geoff

 

Well, it is, kind of. I could say that I'm "not sure" whether or not you're some kind of a plant from Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, but I don't even attempt such an allusion, because it isn't justified or relevant. By even raising it, you do the entire argument a disservice, and apply an unfair slant to the discussion.

Best regards,

Geoff

 

Your evidence consists of distorting witness testimony while conveniently ignoring things such as the smell of kerosene and the falling lifts.

But you still refuse to see is just how stupid the bombs in the basement theory is when the collapse started at the top. Even if, for the sake of argument, we assume that you actually had something which could be considered evidence you still have the problem that whenever bombs go off in buildings they tend to have some sort of effect. These imaginary bombs clearly didn’t do anything as the collapse started at the top.

Why would you put a bomb on the bottom floor when you are trying to hide the massive super conspiracy where planes are smashing into buildings? It is just a very stupid theory with no credible evidence whatsoever.

 

The steel evaporated? Show me this evidence.

You have been spoonfed evidence that completely invalidates this claim. Do I need to go through it again?

Do explosions explain softened steel?

 

Scott's memory does serve him. no evidence has been presented that shows gasoline fires can melt steel girders. Astaneh specifically says there was no melting of girders at the bridge event.

also this:
"The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel." Jet fuel is essentially kerosene and would have served mainly to ignite very large, but not unusually hot, hydrocarbon fires

kerosene burns hotter than gasoline, infering gasoline cannot melt steel.
http://www.jwiwood.com/faq/conversion.html