9/11 Poll

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by scott3x, Feb 7, 2009.


Who was responsible for 9/11?

  1. 1- The official story regarding 9/11 is the sacred truth. Questioning it is blasphemous.

  2. 2- The official story regarding 9/11 is more or less right. No need to investigate further.

  3. 3- The official story regarding 9/11 is questionable in some areas.

  4. 4- EoG (Elements of the Government) let 9/11 happen.

  5. 5- EoG let 9/11 happen. EoG prevented the investigation of certain individuals before 9/11.

  6. 6- EoG, perhaps in the form of a secret society, made 9/11 happen.

  7. 7- Other

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scott3x Banned Banned

    I disagree, but I don't want to be bothered with digging up the evidence just now, if ever.

    I'm doing no such thing. The problem is that you 2 do it so often that I've decided to put responses to stop responding to back posts from you and Kenny indefinitely.

    I'm responding to these ones because you're not being insulting. Perhaps there are some uninsulting ones I've missed, but I'm not going to rifle through your back posts to determine which ones aren't insulting.

    Criticism I can handle. It's the constant stream of insults that get to be too much; Trippy himself has previously said that he has considered curtailing his involvement here due to the same thing, and I have taken measures to try to ensure that my side of the debate is more civil with him, atleast.

    I think so

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I've done the same with you. It's just that, like I said, I've gotten tired of the insults now.

    Continue what behaviour? Not reply to insulting posts? I've found that the reverse has been happening actually.

    So you did. But you didn't comment on the most important paragraph. Here it is:
    Let's imagine for a moment that this is true. I certainly believe that official story believers avoid many points that they don't know how to respond to. So you (and apparently Trippy) get real hot under the collar because of it? Amateurs. Think of this like chess. You attack; your opponent, instead of putting up a proper defense, essentially ignores it. Do you blow your top because he's ignoring your attack? Ofcourse not... any decent strategist will realize that they've got their opponent where they want them; now all they have to do is keep on using the same attack, over and over and over again, until the opponent finally has to acknowledge that he or she has no defense against it.​

    Care to elaborate on that sentence?

    What gave you that impression?
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Oh I feel so lucky that you didn’t.

    Your comment was ridiculous. We have not stuck up for each other.

    Which is complete crap. If we were insulting you regularly you would report us.

    Yes you will respond to this post and any post where you don't have to defend any of your silly claims.

    What those claims were gets lost after enough obfuscation and distraction. That's the plan I assume.

    No you are responding to this because it is a time wasting post in which you don’t actually have to elaborate, in your own words, on claims like "In the case of the WTC 7 they actually managed to create a clearly flawed simulation of collapse, but just looking at it with a skeptical eye should make it clear how flawed it was."

    Constant stream of insults? That is going beyond exaggeration into lying.

    Trippy has backed up every claim he has made. You run away and make excuses.

    Somehow you managed to avoid comprehending the point. You keep complimenting the people who have only responded to a few of your posts. The ones who have responded to a significant number know how dodgy and dishonest you are.

    Not replying to any attack on your half-baked claims.

    Yes but you are making arrogant claims about subjects it appears you know nothing about and cannot defend. Can you not understand this?

    lol Yes you are the professional and we're all amateurs.

    So you are acknowledging that Kenny has you exactly where he wants you and you have no defence? That’s exactly what you are describing.

    Ugh. It is clear you are avoiding defending your posts.

    1. Your refusal to respond to Kenny.
    2. Apparently Gage has.
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. scott3x Banned Banned

    I'm going to skip over some tiresome innuendo...

    There you go again.

    I used to do that, but I got tired of it; Stryder is not exactly all that strict here and he's made that clear. I've found that it's easier to just skip over what you and Kenny say a lot of the time.

    Actually, I'm defending claims even here. They have to do with how to hold a civilized discussion and they apply equally well for 9/11 as they do for any other contentious subject.

    Whatever shaman.

    You want to believe that, go right ahead.

    Again, you want to believe that, be my guest. Your insults have simply gotten me to the point where I don't care all that much what you believe.

    Whatever shaman.

    Or maybe people like you and Kenny just have a hard time being civilized and I've gotten tired of it.

    Using my own insults against me nice, laugh ;-). I would be hypocritical if I didn't accept insults I have used against others, so this one gets through. Anyway, I disagree with your assertion that my claims are in any way half-baked

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Do I understand that you think I'm making arrogant claims about subjects that you believe I know nothing about? Yes, I do. The issue, however, is not what you believe, but what is true. I have clearly stated that Trippy knows more than me about chemistry. But I also contend that there are many times when you -think- I don't understand things when in fact it's you who doesn't understand.

    When it comes to manners, yes, I think I'm quite professional.

    You've apparently forgotten the beginning of that paragraph. It was: "Let's imagine...".

    Why wouldn't I? What I write reflects what I believe to be true. It's also clear that you're defending yours and I certainly don't hold -that- against you, just the form in which you go about doing it. No idea how that relates to your comment that I'm more transparent than I realize.

    Already explained why I've stopped responding to Kenny, but if you want to go on about my wanting to avoid points instead of insults, I can't stop you.

    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Hoz_Turner Registered Member

    Your calculations are irrelevant and a nonesense. It is clear that you are playing a game of deception. You contradict even the official data here. Zinc and magnesium are dominant over aluminium and silicates in the WTC paint, and this is a fact. Stop spreading lies and disinfo.

    As for X-EDS, it is clear that you have already taken spectra out of context and you are doing so again here with an irrelevant example. You need to realise that X-EDS is used in different ways, as well as the fact that it wasn't the only testing mechanism used by Harrit et al.

    Some quotes from the paper regarding application of XEDS pre-MEK material separation: -

    "In order to learn more from these findings, a focused
    electron beam was placed directly onto the different particles,
    and the XEDS data were collected."

    "Both spectra display significant carbon and oxygen, which may be
    partially due to the beam spreading and receiving an overlapping
    X-ray signal from the matrix material as well as particles
    below the surface. The beam energy (20 keV) is such
    that the volume of material from which the X-ray signal is
    generated is larger than the particles. Hence, some Al and Si
    are seen in Fig. (11b) which may not be inherent in the faceted
    grains, and some Fe is seen in Fig. (11a), which may
    not be inherent in the plate-like particles."

    The carbon-matrix had a factor on this pre-MEK soaking.

    Post-MEK showed separation of the aluminium plates and iron oxide from the carbon matrix, and allowed
    the direct electron beam to be focussed on particular areas rich in certain elements. Thus, the X-EDS spectra
    results for determining aluminium\oxygen present for given particles could be more accurately produced and the
    spectra generated were very different.

    Its funny how you also continue to deny that Harrit et al tested the red-chips and they reacted violently at less than 500C and produced molten iron. They tested red-chips and they did not produce the steep characteristic thermal spike of thermite. NIST also tested the red primer paint of the WTC and also found the paint to be stable at much higher temperatures and hardly thermitic.

    Again, your argument has no legs to stand on except for confusing matters and obfuscating the facts for newcomers. You are a grade A shill.
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009
  8. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Because you had no answers. You copped out. You are a moronic liar that has nowhere to turn in defence of your lies.

    Despite claiming that you stopped responding to me, you attempted to respond to my linear thermite cutting with a pathetic "nanothermite did it", so basically, you only respond to criticms when you have a "go to" response. Otherwise when you are stumped, you cry about people calling you a liar.

    What you clearly don't understand is that instead of crying about it, if you showed you weren't a liar, then I would stand corrected.

    You aren't fooling anyone here. You want respect? Earn it.
  9. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    More than what?

    How many times have I said we don't have trustworthy information on how much there was? The NIST report doesn't even specify a total. You got the thickness of the floor slabs wrong so WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT PROOF OF ANYTHING?

    You didn't know the impact to collapse time either so you are in no position to criticize anybody.

  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    i've asked you at least 4 times already to provide the evidence that this stuff was found on the pile.
    when can we expect an answer?
  11. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Are you agreeing with 425,000 cubic yards? That comes of a minimum of 300,000 tons per tower and that is assuming only 110 lb per cubic foot which we know was not the case. There had to be a lot of concrete in the foundation and basements but I have never seen a specification of how much.

    I am somewhat inclined to trust the 425,000 cu. yd number since it appears to come from long before 9/11 but I haven't seen a good explanation of how it was all distributed. I still give a higher reliability to the 200,000 tons of steel than the concrete though.

    I just consider it to be totally ridiculous that information this simple can't be gotten in nearly 8 years. And yet so many EXPERTS behave as though it is perfectly alright that we don't know the number and weights of the perimeter wall panels.

  12. scott3x Banned Banned

    Whoa. There are 2 possibilities- one, Jerry Russell was massively off with his estimate of 90,000 tons for -both- towers, or 2, the 300,000 tons per tower is the one that's massively off. His initial estimate was around 300,000 tons per tower (650,000 tons for both), but he did some more calculations and came up with the 90,000 tons. I wrote to him, and he explained why he lowered his estimate on the weight of the concrete so much. Here's a link to his explanation:

    I'd definitely be suspecting the weight of the concrete, seeing as how the estimate you have is so radically different from Jerry Russell's updated estimate.

    psikey, I don't think this is a matter of capability, but rather of interest.

    What I believe Tony has said before is that there is plenty of other evidence that can prove that the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions. I believe your point was that this was the simplest method; I'm really not in a position to answer whether that's true or not. Perhaps Tony could though...
  13. scott3x Banned Banned

    Perhaps it is clear for you Hoz, but it certainly isn't clear for me. I am concerned about the possibility that you are jumping to conclusions regarding Trippy's intent.

    This, I believe, is a point that even someone who doesn't know all that much concerning chemistry can easily understand. Unless Trippy is claiming that paint explodes at less than 500C, I think you've got something that even a layman can understand. I am definitely interested to see how Trippy responds to this bit.
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    >.<. Not the pile thing again.
  15. scott3x Banned Banned

    That's quite enough. I've reported you.. again. For all the good it will do.
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009
  16. leopold Valued Senior Member

    might be a good time for the thread to commit suicide.

    delete me.
  17. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    You've been given ample opportunity to prove why I am wrong in calling you a moron and a liar.

    Rather typical of the troofer movement.
  18. KennyJC Registered Senior Member


    How many pages before troofers give something of substance?
  19. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    I am not making an estimate. I am simply reporting what is on a lot of websites. As far as I have been able to determine that is the number which the New York Port Authority was using in the pamphlet that was given to tourists visiting the WTC for years before 9/11.

    I am assuming that includes what was in the basements and foundation while I also assume that material did not become part of the pyroclastic cloud since it was below ground. But I have not seen anyone distinguish above vs below ground level quantities of steel and concrete.

    The lack of precision in the numbers that people throw around is just absurd but then they expect to PROVE things with calculus. Math equations don't mean squat if you can't put the correct numbers in for the variables.

  20. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    I asked you this several pages ago and you didn't respond.

    What do you mean by "pyroclastic cloud"?
  21. scott3x Banned Banned

    I never said you did. I said "the estimate you have", not "have made".

    I can easily imagine why it was mistaken then- I'm sure tourists don't really care how much the actual towers weighed, especially before 9/11, laugh ;-).

    That was Jerry Russell's assessment in any case. I think now may be the time to quote Jerry Russell's post to me:

    Hi Scott,

    The 90,000 ton estimate came out of a discussion I had with Jim Hoffman of 911-research. Here was my analysis which was posted at http://www.911-strike.com/demolition_explosive.htm :

    Hoffman’s first draft of his paper relied on my estimates of the volume of concrete in the towers. In my “powder analysis” I estimated that the mass of concrete in the towers was 650,000 tons. This was based on reports of the total amount of concrete poured for the WTC, which probably included plazas, roads, subways and so forth, in addition to the towers themselves. This was probably a serious over-estimate (although it would have no effect on the conclusion of the “powder analysis” since the gravitational energy per kg of concrete would be essentially unchanged.)

    From the FEMA report, for the floors of each WTC tower, we have ~40,000 sq ft of floor area (including the core) * 117 floors * 4″ thick of “lightweight” concrete (5″ in the core), which works out to about 58,000 cubic yards.

    “Normal” concrete ways about 2 tons per cubic yard, but “light weight” concrete can be anywhere from about 600 to 3000 pounds per cubic yard. If we take a figure towards the high end of the range, we would estimate about 90,000 tons of concrete, but the correct figure could be much lower.

    Additionally, all of the exterior columns (and presumably core columns and spandrel plates as well) were coated with several inches of a fireproofing plaster containing either asbestos or “inorganic fibers” which presumably might include fiberglass. From the Guardian, the exterior columns were about 13″ square (240 columns) and the core columns were about 14″x36″ (48 columns) so the surface area of all the columns would be 17280 square feet per floor, or 2 million square feet for the entire building. Covering with a 3″ layer of fireproof plaster would require 19,000 cubic yards, which could easily amount to another 10,000 or 20,000 tons of fiberglass-rich material.

    Overall, the mass of concrete and fibrous material in each WTC tower is probably not more than 110,000 tons. This revised estimate was used in Hoffman’s later revisions of his paper.​

    As you can see, this was nothing more than a very rough estimate. So if there’s some calculation where it’s important to know an exact number, I can’t claim to have that information.

    Also, I noticed that my very early article “Proof of controlled demolition at the WTC” was linked in the thread at sciforums. I agree with the posters who said that this article contained some serious errors. My retraction is posted at http://www.911-strike.com/demolition.htm .​
  22. scott3x Banned Banned

    Neither have I. Perhaps even the mainstream truth movement doesn't seem to think this is that important? I'd certainly like Tony's input here.

    That's definitely true. My understanding is that the mainstream truth movement simply used different numbers in order to show that the buildings could only have come down via controlled demolition. Again, I refer this to Tony who certainly belongs to that group.
  23. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    How would you know when I haven't posted them.

    That would be you - who can't even back up his own assertions with sources independent of conspiracy theorists.

    Are you so sure of that?
    My calculations are based on the official sources.

    So comparing the spectrum of an unknown to the spectra of samples of Aluminium Oxide is irrelevant now?

    The point you have clearly missed is that the psectrum of aluminium oxide is the same irrespective of the size of teh particles involved - something which i've demonstrated by showing that the relative peak heights in a sample of corundum are the same as teh relative peak hieghts of alumina nanotubes.

    And? This refutes nothing I've said, in fact it confirms it.

    Again, this contradicts nothing I said.
    The region may have been bigegr than the particles, nbut it was smaller than the body of the chip, which causes peak extinction.

    Another randomly generated sentence perhaps?

    Which generally aren't significantly different in terms of relative peak heights from the spectra before soaking, the difference is in the trace elements present and their detecability.

    I've denied no such thing.
    What I have questioned, however, is the significance of this finding and Harrits spin on it. Do you understand the difference?

    Right. Chips of an unspecified paint. :/ Even Harrit doesn't state that they're samples of Tnemec 99.

    Onto the next fallacy.

    But wait a minute, I thought you were busy saying NIST were part of the coverup.

    You don't trust NIST's findings, so why are you citing them again? :/

    So in summary, from you, again, we have a post completely devoid of meaningful content, laden with insults, and concluded with an accusation of participation in illegal activities.

    Care to back that accusation up?

    No, of course not, because you can't.

    Got that reference spectrum for aluminium yet?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page