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

thiese things are not difficult to find with a little googling:

"We have invented a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel chemistry"
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/247064.pdf
- April 10,2000

this paper appeared on the internet in october 2000 just weeks after 911, but clearly the research dates back to at least 1995: "Nanoscale chemistry yields better explosives"
https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

you can verify when it appeared here:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I haven't seen the picture of the molten metal. If someone has the link, it would be appreciated.

Thermite, and even more so nanothermite burns very very brightly and the reaction byproducts (light..smoke..etc) would be very visible...So why don't we see these?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Arguments for 9/11 being an inside job

True. I simply wanted to point out that such a thing has been done before.

Actually, there is evidence that the original attack on the WTC was also an inside job. But no links for now. I do believe that there have been more terrorist attacks then inside jobs, but it seems that when it comes to mass destruction, states are unparalleled both in their capability to commit and actual acts of destruction.

If you wish. I think, however, that you should focus on size; as far as I know, no terrorist plot of this magnitude has ever succeeded in the past. And from what I've gathered, there's lots of evidence that high up elements of the government knew something was going to happen; and yet, far from trying to prevent it, some high up elements actively stopped certain investigations from proceeding. After the fact, many investigations were stonewalled as well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If 9/11 were an inside job, how many people had to know?

I've heard that the DNA evidence was faked so that people who lost people could rest easy and even that some members of congress know about this. No hard facts, just a rumour. This really isn't my area of expertise as you know (that being the WTC collapse). In any case, I don't see why we have to focus so much on how many people were involved at this point; I think it's much simpler to simply follow the evidence in regards to the WTC building collapses.

 

Are you admitting that you now believe that my alternate theory on the WTC building collapses is atleast possible? That would certainly be an improvement

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. In any case, let's have a look at that link there to see who precisely doesn't consider the diesel fuel a possibility:
*********************************************
NIST has finally released their final report into the collapse of Building 7, which collapsed inexplicably on 9/11. The New York Times quoted Sunder who said, "[The] reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery... It did not collapse from explosives or fuel oil fires.” Earlier, Sunder was scratching his head, saying, "We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7." Similarly, the collapse baffled FEMA who lamely concluded, "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” In other words, despite the fact that FEMA claimed a diesel fuel explosion would have been improbable, NIST is now asserting that mere "fires" knocked down WTC 7? As NIST admits, this would be the "first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building."
*********************************************

Perhaps NIST would have been better off trying to prop up the diesel fuel story, as their 'fire alone' alternative seems to be even less likely. Ofcourse, the most likely explanation is the one they refuse to even investigate- explosives.

 

Steven Jones was not an 'almost total unknown'. He had challenged a a theoretical prediction by the Professor Emeritus of Physics from the University of California- and, after 10 years of laborious testing, proven to be correct. Perhaps you could say he got his 'big break' after 7 years into his study of muon catalyzed fusion. He tells the story quite well in his article titled "Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method"

*******************************************
I traveled to UC-Berkeley to defend the collaboration’s conclusions in that paper, much as I am
doing today.1 We recorded a very small “muon-alpha sticking coefficient,” which had a consequence that a much higher fusion energy yield was realized than had been theoretically predicted. One of the physicists at Berkeley said “you can’t possibly be right; you are challenging J. David Jackson,” which I was! Now those of you who know Jackson know that he was one of the top theoretical physicists of his day. Jackson had looked at this muon-alpha sticking coefficient and predicted that it would be around 1%. Then we did the experiment for the first time and we measured this parameter in a liquid deuterium-tritium mixture, we found a sticking value of about 0.42%, roughly a factor of two smaller than predicted by Jackson. We were told that it couldn’t possibly be correct, but we couldn’t just back down from our experimental measurements! (History repeats itself as I talk now about the probable use of thermite-analogs in the WTC buildings, unwilling to back down from carefully measured empirical findings.) We repeated and extended the experiments and found that our measurement was correct. But it took a subsequent independent experiment to test our results and verify to many people that we were correct. Now our published value, published in a peer-reviewed journal article, is accepted as correct. And it is the theory which was refined.

Again, I’m setting a background -- that experiments determine what is true and correct, not someone’s theoretical notions, even someone famous like J. David Jackson.

My next major paper was in Nature, 1986, a British scientific journal.5 I want to point out that it generally takes several years to go from a conference proceedings or a minor paper to a major paper like this one in Nature. By 1986 I was about seven years into the study of muon catalyzed fusion. One cannot realistically demand a major publication in less than two years -- which is about how long I’ve been studying what’s happened with 9/11/2001. Nevertheless we are approaching a major publication already, I maintain. I’m not sure Nature would publish it or Scientific American, but the research by various scientists and engineers is certainly reaching a point where a major journal must publish the work.
*******************************************
www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

 

scott - the original Fema report appendix C (which the newspapers picked up on) is here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

MacGyver1968 - the above also contains pictures of melted steel samples.

"light..smoke..would be very visible...So why don't we see these"
are you saying you can't see any white smoke in the collapse videos?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

you could start here:
http://www.explosive911analysis.com/

white hot point source producing yellow hot stream of molten metal seen falling from the towers:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

...is seen streaming off steel beam ends in almost every video.
see here also:
http://www.explosive911analysis.com/

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm not talking about during the collapse...I'm talking in the 20 or so seconds right before the collapse starts. Thermite or nanothermite can't instantaneously cut through heavy steel I beams...the reaction would have had to be initiated prior to the collapse...and I just don't see anything happening in those seconds before the collapse that would indicate a high energy reaction of any sort going on.

 

I've just shown you a website with pictures showing something going on at the base of the towers prior to the collapse:
http://www.explosive911analysis.com/

I'll pull some pictures off in case you don't click the link you asked for: you responded within 5 minutes of my post, was that enough time for you to study the site i linked to?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The collapse starts at the top...what does smoke at the bottom have anything to do with it? If you are saying that is thermite going off at the bottom of the building..then the collapse would have started there. If thermite was used in the collapse area..it would have lit up several floors like a candle.

and FYI...I generally don't click links that have "911" in their URL. You have posted links before from "non-911" sites, and I do click on these.

 

Yeah? what brought you to this thread then?

 

how does a crush-down theory, or a pancake theory, or an inward bowing/floor sagging theory explain the events at the base of the towers? they don't ! so those theories are unlikely to be true. remember the towers were structures within structures - you cannot see what is happening inside the core structure - the outer columns are densely packed together. you also cannot see what is happening in the basement levels, so your speculative reasoning isn't sound.

"it would have lit up several floors like a candle" - it would have only been necessary to use enough to cut the right amount steel, which would have been much less than an amount which would have "lit up several floors like a candle".

 

Common sense.

 

If anything happened in the basement, it obviously didn't do anything, because the base of the structure remains intact, standing and unmoved...until the rest of the building gets all the way to the bottom.

 

I'm not at all sure how well they did their physics, either side of the debate, but every time I read the government's side I feel that they are trying to obscure facts and that they don't completely understand their material. If they seem wrong that at best means that they can't prove the conspiracy theorists wrong.

I can see how the base could have thrown off material ahead of the collapse. I'm surprised that the government didn't use this idea because it's quite obvious: Sound. Multiple impacts set the structure to vibrating. The vibrations traveled at the speed of sound, which is even faster in steel than in air. The vibrations travel relatively freely until they reach the place where the steel is embedded in large mass of poured concrete. Then those ends break loose, or welds break somewhere near the base, and that sound energy comes out and sends building materials flying in all directions.

 

Either you meant October 2001 or almost a year before 9/11.. but it can't both have been on October 2000 -and- have been 'weeks after 911' ;-).

 

Go easy on him Headspin... 9/11 is a rather emotional issue and scientists aren't immune from attempting to fit the facts of a case into their world view. My sleeping hours are sometimes a little.. odd. But I'm currently unemployed and that poses its own issues. However, you may have noticed that Geoff's hours in the last 24 hours have also been somewhat odd... I think it may be something like a fever, of the type that Neo went through after swallowing the red pill in the Matrix. It seems that Geoff may have started to have doubts of the official theory. Perhaps this is mistaken, but I suspect he may be losing some sleep over it.. and when one loses sleep, one's faculties of logic can be somewhat impaired; evidence that doesn't support one's viewpoint may fail to register; the mind protecting itself from having one's world view shifted. Certain data can be harmful in the short term (changing one's world view can frequently be a painful process)...

 

Is this the diesel fuel one? Because I couldn't see any comments concerning diesel fuel in the above appendix at any rate. It does have some other interesting statements though. Such as the suggestion of researching the source of the sulfure in Samples 1 and 2 (I believe I have heard that thermate may be the answer to this).

 

Can you elaborate on this common sense of yours? Why do you feel that taking a look at the 9/11 thread in this forum is common sense and yet it isn't common sense to click on a site with 9/11 in it?