World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by someguy1, Nov 4, 2017.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,950
    Well, that's because the discussion is over.
    You tried to make your case, but it was not founded in facts or in physics.
    So it has fallen flat. Yep even with seventeen years of trying.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    I think you must recognise folk form an opinion and they will leave it there.


    I have been looking at the mulitude of vids.

    I think the burning question is why the "stuff" was removed so fast...maybe there is a good reason but I dont know what it may be.à

    If a plane crashes the "stuff" is placed somewhere and examined for years so why was that not the case with the towers and no 7.

    The fact that no other buildings have collapsed due to fire should have had engineers looking at the "stuff" you could think....if for no other teason than to be able to head off future collapses of building on fire.

    There are claims of thermite in the dust and iron spheres which if true must raise questions.

    Is this a fact? It needs to be established or bebunked.

    I have seen vids where apparently expert pilots claim they could not guide any of the planes that hit a target...are they full of it or not?

    I dont understand the physics of the colapse but I must say I do wonder how they were so ordered...and fall rates seemingly consistent with the falling material in free fall.


    I did see one vid that was most compelling by a phyisisitt who said the only way to get anywhere is to focus on one aspect...but I cant remember what that aspect was☺

    In any case the event is now history and you probably will have to accept that is the inly way it will be remembered.

    If a conspiracy I think the conspirators are so far ahead of the game nothing can ever come of it.



    When I have discussed the possibility with others the main reason they give is that "our government" could not be involved is mainly because to believe it could is just impossuble to accept.

    I remember the "Mission impossible" tv series could it be that we believe that sort of thing really happens in the real world and we view the event thru those childhood filters.

    My position is I dont know and if something was other than the officual version we will never know.

    Certainly you have no hope of changing anyones views I expect.
    But at least you can count me in as undecided☺ and I doubt if you will get more than that really.

    Of it was an inside job I trust our government to only be doing what needed to be done☺

    Alex
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,950
    <aside>

    Or just as bad: the event is washed away.

    Know how all the Moon Hoaxers think we never landed on the Moon? We were there; they weren't. It's just archival footage to them.

    Give it ten years, and a younger generation (born after 2001) will be saying "The whole 9/11 incident was video faked. No towers ever fell; they were never there to begin with."

    Mark my words.

    </aside>
     
    sideshowbob and Xelasnave.1947 like this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    The irony may be that our wonderful access to knowledge via the net is the very thing that takes us into the next dark age...It seems facts will be determined by the group.

    History by a popular vote.

    I look at it all because I have a new plan that gives me more utube than I can consume.

    I look for cage fights astrophotography proceedures and moto cross but they present you with conspiracies, flat Earth, this and that ...but I look and do not judge ... its like the reasonable question as to why the rubble was shipped off so fast...someone may have not thought it through ... thats all.

    As to free fall the only way to be sure is to test several twin towers and no 7s over and over...that cant happen.

    I think folk get a kick out of presenting a conspiracy theory because it lets them be that person who knows something others do not...
    But for me I like to recognise that I dont know all the facts or understand the science in truth...and even knowing the science its easy to leave something out when you do your sums.

    Anyways in 10000 years no one will know aything about us.
    Alex
     
  8. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,255
    Alex, the professional scoffer-skeptics crew here have been, as usual, gifted a free run with the likes of psikeyhackr, whose chosen 'clincher' piece of evidence made it dead easy for said professional scoffer-skeptics to deride. And by some kind of mystical linkage, every other doubter of the official 9-11 conspiracy theory is assumed just as 'dumb-ass' a Twoofer. I should know better than to venture into these shark infested waters, but since you seem sincere and currently undecided.....

    Molten iron and/or steel. Lots of it. Under all three WTC buildings 1, 2, & 7. Brightly glowing and sometimes still dripping molten steel being recovered for not just shortly after but weeks even over a month after the event. So bizarre it's hard to conceive of ANY reasonable explanation. However, the ONLY one that makes any sense is the initial placement of large quantities of thermite/thermate in those towers (I doubt there was much nano-thermite used, but likely all three were used as required).
    Much of which did its intended progressive demolition job at the time, but much also 'fizzled' and got buried underground. Occasionally doing its belated job as rubble was disturbed in the massive cleanup ops.
    Try any other scenario consistent with the thoroughly inconsistent Official Conspiracy Theory, and make me both laugh and shake head in dismay.
    Anyhow, try these for starters:

    https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/high-temperature-thermitic-reactions

    And, for the sake of 'balance', here's a 'debunking' vid that may impress some who think knocking down a straw-man is end of story:
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    I must say that molten metal pouring out of the building looks like molten steel but I guess folk will say its alluminium.
    I wonder if one could do a spectrographic analysis using data from the video...you would think so...
    But even if its molten steel that could still come from burning furniture etc if there was a blast furnas efffect ... high wind may cause furniture etc to burn at a very high heat.
    It is such a pity they shipped the steel off because examination of the steel would determine the matter.
    Alex
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,950
    How did witnesses determine that it was, in fact, molten steel? Can anyone determine what such a thing is by eyeballing it at a distance (under such unprecedented circumstances, no less)?

    Witnesses described what they saw in the moment - which certainly might bring to mind what we popularly see as molten steel - but that does not mean it is molten steel.

    By orders of magnitude, the most likely scenario here is that the qualitative description of events in the panic of the moment have been seized upon by those wishing to create a narrative, who have, by sleight-of-hand, strong-armed a witness comparison word into a positive confirmation.


    As for pools of molten steel, weeks after the collapse - since that violates any known physics ( indeed it violates the known physics of the "steel" explanation favoured by conspirators - so kinda shooting themselves in the foot there), not to mention your own credulity - it is almost certainly inaccurate.

    By far, it is more likely that several events have been conflated, and that "descriptions" have been manipulated to read like "positive identification by analysis".


    Indeed. you hit the nail on the head.

    "Folks would say"...


    Under other circumstances, folks would say "I saw a ghost!" - but that does not mean that what they saw was, in fact, confirmed a ghost.

    Witnesses describe what they interpret they are seeing. Witnesses do not recount objective reality.



    Notice also, the implicit false dichotomy you buy into without realizing it (we are all susceptible to it):

    It doesn't look like steel, so it must be aluminium. No mention at all of the most likely possibility - that it is something more mundane.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2018
  11. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,255
    Alex - actually study all the evidence presented in those two links - ALL of it! Your questions/doubts have, by any unbiased, reasonable measure, been answered there. Really.
     
  12. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,255
    Irrelevant, inappropriate comparisons. I'll give you the same advice I gave Alex - actually study ALL the evidence presented in just the two given links. And then try and debunk the totality of it. But of course you can't and won't try. It's far easier, and certainly much safer, to float down with and sing the praises of PC mainstream, right?
     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,950
    It is not inappropriate. Witnesses describe the interpretation of what they see, using words. Saying 'I saw a river of molten steel' does not identify it as a river of molten steel, any more than 'I saw a ghost' identifies it as a ghost. Both are very similar circumstances from a frightening, confusing encounter point of view.

    Wouldn't it make sense to have them out their best foot forward, say, provide facts instead of having to couch their idea in a long narrative?

    I provided a dispassionate and considered take - pointing out that witness account is not equal to confirmation. There was nothing remotely disparaging in it. Yet your response is to pretend as if I'm trolling. I argued in good faith, but you did not respond in kind.
     
  14. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,255
    Melted and sulfur eroded recovered girders and remains thereof (as presented there in those links) make a mockery of your strategy of discounting a host of reliable, trained personnel eyewitnesses, covering a span of months.
    You are of course free to make such a disparaging subjective statement. Backing it up with an objective point-by-point rebuttal of ALL matters raised in that linked to is quite another thing.
    No you didn't provide a dispassionate and considered take. You took the typical mainstream supporter strategy of casting doubt on anything contrary to the Official Conspiracy Theory. In particular suggesting ALL eyewitnesses to molten steel, including experienced engineers as well as firefighters, other rescue workers and recovery/demolition crew, were ALL badly mistaken.
    And, in case you get some spine, feel free to be the very first one here to actually objectively critique that smoking-gun article I gave way back in another thread(s), several times actually: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,950
    That is not disparaging. You are using that word inappropriately.

    Nor is it subjective - unless you would argue that 'getting to the facts as succinctly as possible' is merely my personal preference.

    No I didn't. You are certainly trying to dismiss my take by generalizing - essentially a straw man. You didn't refute my argument, you dragged someone else's argument in, and attacked that.

    The fact that there may be other takes similar to my own does not, in any way, diminish mine. That would be a fallacy.

    You appear to mistake me for someone with which you have some history on the subject at-hand. In like, three posts, there has been no test of spiny-ness.

    However, insults are an attempt to drag discussion away from reason and into an emotional arena.
    If insults are your best response, then you have no rational ones. You lose the discussion by losing control of your reason.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2018
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,655
    Nope. No molten steel. Some molten aluminum, and plenty of red hot steel that would often come apart into showers of red-hot steel (since the stuff is very weak.) But the only molten metal found in the site was aluminum, usually mixed with all sorts of crap (concrete, glass, human remains.)
    See above.
    No pools of molten iron were recovered. Plenty of hot metal twisted into unrecognizable shapes - but that's a bit different, eh?
    Yes. It is quite easy to mistake molten aluminum for molten steel. You'd have to be a metallurgist to know the difference.
     
  17. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    I dont think I approached it that way Dave...
    I dont know what it was other than it looked like molten metal...steel maybe...alluminium maybe...it could have been burning plastic...but I dont know.
    My approach would be to try and analyse the data using spectrophy but I dont know if that is possible...it should be possible as guys do it with stars and I guess they are only analysing their photographs.
    And if it was molten steel why could it not come from the effect of high wind for example.
    I have now seen many vids on the matter.
    They are interesting and most of them make a great case for the case they seek to make.
    But I watch vids on the latest discovery of Atlantis and they make a good case.
    That does not mean I have to accept or reject the proposition.

    All I learn is folk can present ideas and make them believable but one does not have to judge really.

    So in my world it can be both an inside job or the official version as I conclude anyone presenting their version can be convincing ...
    I think the danger is to say one has the correct answer...
    I do think it is reasonable for folk to look at the three colapses and say they were cintrolled demolitions because thats what they look like...were they? I dont know but at the time way back that was my thought at the time but that may have been triggered because I heard in the confusion someone say about no 7 to "pull it" which I thought meant demolish it for safety reasons.
    I ask how could they fall like I saw but I know that I dont know.
    I dont look at things like its not this so it must be that.

    The removal of the steel as I said is a concern but that could be a result of folk confused by the event...

    The story getting around about thermite in the dust ...I dont know if that is true or not.
    Could the planes be guided when folk say they could not have been guided...I dont know.
    Its the uncertainty principle really...unless you have access to the cat you must treat it as dead and alive.
    Alex
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,950
    I was simply making the point that it is very easy for anyone to not realize the presence of loaded statements and therefore not question their validity. There were other matters important to you, but implicitly, you acknowledged only two options implied by the narrative. That's how narratives can manipulate.
     
  19. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,282
    I think they have to use the actual light from the star or subject.
    I think you should get one for your scope Alex... http://www.rspec-astro.com/star-analyser/
     
  20. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    Thanks for the link Sweetpea.
    In truth I have too much to manage in the astrophotography dept.
    Current programs..8 inch, 80mm each to run narrow band ...and two dslrs on one mount for wide field.
    I used just one dslr last night to capture Orion...the images are stacking now...only two hours left for a result the lappy says...then the rest of the day processing.
    It was at 200mm and hopefully it will show that you dont need expensive gear to get a good result.
    Thanks again.
    Alex
     
    sweetpea likes this.
  21. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    Yes indeed I agree.
    Alex
     
  22. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,255
    He he - says you. Someone clearly committed to opposing anyone or anything other than what seemingly supports the absurd, self-contradictory Official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory. Good night.
     
  23. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,255
    Not when it's obviously glowing bright orange to white in color, and flowing at the same time. Anyway FEMA metallurgists as well as independent investigators with metallurgical backgrounds all concurred widespread instances of melting, and severe sulfur erosion, of structural steel members happened at WTC. As covered in those two links I gave - btw! Impossible if the Official Conspiracy Theory were true. Here, actually STUDY ALL of this one:
    http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/
     

Share This Page