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

[Stryder]

I believe that the building had places to place explosives to bring it down; that, in fact, most if not all new high rises have this. However, I believe that the explosives are only placed close to the time that they want the buildings brought down. I have heard that explosives don't last that long and ofcourse there is the issue that if the explosives are in the building it makes it that much easier to blow it up in an inoportune time.

As to when the explosives were placed in the building, here's a good page:
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/april2004/042304explosivesplaced.htm

Obviously some explosives "sweat" and there is the chance of destabilisation like you say, so that does narrow the time margin like you put. Of course it doesn't rule it out, the only thing that speaks against it is the loss of life. My use of Collateral Damage does of course mean the surround buildings and potential loss of life outside of the towers.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

I believe that the building had places to place explosives to bring it down; that, in fact, most if not all new high rises have this. However, I believe that the explosives are only placed close to the time that they want the buildings brought down. I have heard that explosives don't last that long and ofcourse there is the issue that if the explosives are in the building it makes it that much easier to blow it up in an inoportune time.

As to when the explosives were placed in the building, here's a good page:
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/april2004/042304explosivesplaced.htm

Obviously some explosives "sweat" and there is the chance of destabilisation like you say, so that does narrow the time margin like you put. Of course it doesn't rule it out, the only thing that speaks against it is the loss of life.

Yeah. The only thing that is certain is that -someone- decided that all those people on 9/11 should die. Why and who are sometimes the hardest things to figure out. The easiest is usually -how- the assasination was carried out. Which is why I have spent so much time trying to figure out that issue first. Stryder, I think it's absolutely great that you are entertaining the possibility that the buildings may have been taken down by controlled demolition. Shaman, Kenny and others here have yet to even consider it, but I think that if we continue to try to discuss our different viewpoints in a civil manner we may one day begin to agree with each other on whether the planes brought the buildings down or whether it was in fact due to controlled demolitions.

 

[ScyentsIzLief]

I do believe that some if not all of the explosives were placed the weekend before 9/11 as is mentioned in the last link I put here. However, I sincerely doubt that reducing collateral damage was the intent, unless by collateral damage you mean damage to nearby buildings and the people in those as opposed to the people in the WTC towers; the tower did come down in a symetrical way, even if a fair amount of steel was shot outwards in an explosive manner.

That's what I said...sorry if it sounds harsh.

A question to ponder: why is it that people knew that WTC 7 was going to come down hours before it actually did? Who precisely informed people that this would happen? The BBC reported that the building would collapse -before it actually did-. When BBC finally dealt with this issue, it simply passed the buck along, saying that it had gotten its information from Reuters. Passing the buck along is fine (it certainly gets the BBC off the hook), but it still doesn't answer the question.

It's only a question to ponder if you're...how should I say this...slow to understand.

Important documents were in WTC 7. WTC 7 was icing on the cake for a job well done. Simple as that.

 

[scott3x]

This is stupid for two reasons:

I guess you're an unabashed supporter of the 'stupid' term, laugh . You don't suppose you could switch it for absurd?

1) Demolition explosives do very localized damaged to the structure. All you will see is a small puff of smoke, a quick flash and a huge sound blast. All the rest of the damage you see from a conventional demolition is due to the building breaking apart under it's own momentum.

I believe you're thinking of conventional explosives. Thermate isn't a conventional explosive. Neither are mini nukes but as I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm still in the process of researching this theory. The only thing that many experts seem to agree on is that the planes and the ensuing fires had no chance in hell of bringing those buildings down, NIST's lame reasoning notwithstanding.

2) If you believe that the sheer force of a building falling without explosives can not account for what you see in the above picture, then tell me of a bomb that can be responsible for this chaos we see in the picture that can at the same time remain silent?

Thermates I believe are fairly silent, but not completely so; they can even do sonic booms. But you -do- hear a rumble during the collapses and I remember reading somewhere that it actually starts before the buildings have even collapsed, only that sound takes a bit to travel and so it looks like the buildings have started to collapse when the rumble begins. There is also lots of evidence of explosions, as I've pointed out here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/explosions.html

Tell me why I shouldn't call you a moron/liar again?

Why should you call -anyone- a moron? Does it make you feel better to use unnecessary insults? As to a liar, I have certainly seen you not present no evidence that I am such.

The jury is still out on which one more accurately describes you. It appears as though you don't even have the vaguest idea of how a demolition works.

Kenny, just so I wouldn't have to rebut your points over and over again, I made a web site on controlled demolition, complete with my rebuttals to your rebuttals. You can see it here:
http://scott3x.tripod.com/911/cd/

 

[shaman_]

I see what you're saying, but I really don't think that's what happened. I believe there was lots of evidence that without the use of explosives of some kind, the buildings simply wouldn't have fallen. One of the towers (I believe it was the south tower) had worse fires in 1975 and yet not a single floor collapsed, let alone all of them.

The fires were not worse Scott. Stop repeating this nonsense. The 1975 fire was mostly limited to one floor. Because it was the 11th floor, firemen were able to quickly take an elevator up to the fire and use their hoses with the water supply there. The fire started slowly, it didn’t start with an explosion and thousands of gallons of jet fuel across multiple floors. There were no impact holes to provide extra ventilation and the fireproofing wasn’t removed.

No comparison.

http://www.nytimes.com/1975/02/14/nyregion/14WTC.html

 

[Stryder]

In honesty Scott you can rule Nukes out, with a nuclear detonation there would be residual radiation. (This is proven just by looking at information in relationship to Uranium tipped shells and their use in Tank busting in Iraq.)

Unless you saw a lot of people in Hazmat's dealing with the site directly after 9/11, then it's an obvious no go.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

I do believe that some if not all of the explosives were placed the weekend before 9/11 as is mentioned in the last link I put here. However, I sincerely doubt that reducing collateral damage was the intent, unless by collateral damage you mean damage to nearby buildings and the people in those as opposed to the people in the WTC towers; the tower did come down in a symetrical way, even if a fair amount of steel was shot outwards in an explosive manner.

That's what I said...sorry if it sounds harsh.

Sounds good to me . On the issue of 9/11, I believe we're pretty much on the same side. I just don't agree that I'm a pansy . I remember the saying:
"It takes a big man to cry... and an even bigger one to laugh at him!", laugh . I may not be that 'big' physically, but I think it takes a big man spiritually to admit his weaknesses. To try to not react to people who hurt him in an angry manner but admit that he has been hurt. If, however, the person or persons who hurt him don't care, the best thing to do is to avoid the person. If the person won't leave you alone, well, then.. anger does have its place. In primitive times, it was fight or flight. In more modern times, it's best to take flight until you gather your crew. I've never done this, but I remember a story my brother once told me. He was with 2 friends and there was this obnoxious drunken guy. Guy saw my brother with his 2 friends and wanted to go mano a mano with my brother (presumably alone). My brother suavely put it something like this: "Let's see, there's 1 of you and three of us". Said guy after considering backed down . My brother is the youngest in the family but perhaps in part because of that he's now physically the strongest.

Speaking of my brother, I have to call him; he's got a driver's test on Thursday and even though he swore at me yesterday when I answered him in a way he didn't like, he -is- my brother. He can be very funny, but he also can have a -very- foul mouth at times.

 

[John99]

:wtf::zzz:

STFU!

 

[KennyJC]

the tower did come down in a symetrical way, even if a fair amount of steel was shot outwards in an explosive manner.

Demolition charges do not shoot out tons of steel in such a manner. The 'explosive manner' came from god knows how many tons of building collapsing on itself.

A question to ponder: why is it that people knew that WTC 7 was going to come down hours before it actually did? Who precisely informed people that this would happen? The BBC reported that the building would collapse -before it actually did-. When BBC finally dealt with this issue, it simply passed the buck along, saying that it had gotten its information from Reuters. Passing the buck along is fine (it certainly gets the BBC off the hook), but it still doesn't answer the question.

The firefighters knew/thought it was going to collapse based on their on-going observations on the deterioration of the tower throughout the day. Go ahead and make your conspiracy theory all the more ridiculous by implicating these men.

If you are so shameless and stupid to not only implicate THE FUCKING NATIONAL MEDIA on the conspiracy... but you will also implicate the FDNY who lost hundreds of men in the collapses?

Who would have thought it, the media can keep the biggest crime in the history of man kind a secret. FUCKING LOL

 

[scott3x]

Scott,

Please tell me you reconsidered your mini-nuke theory. I didn't even go into the EMP that would have been created.

That's ok, I'll provide a link for you on what appears to be EMP evidence:
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2008/05/summary-of-evidence-of-emps.html

 

[scott3x]

In honesty Scott you can rule Nukes out, with a nuclear detonation there would be residual radiation. (This is proven just by looking at information in relationship to Uranium tipped shells and their use in Tank busting in Iraq.)

Unless you saw a lot of people in Hazmat's dealing with the site directly after 9/11, then it's an obvious no go.

This is the reasoning from 'spooked', author of wtcdemolition.blogspot.com:

*********************************************
1. First, low yield nukes (mini-nukes or micro-nukes) are a proven fact that the U.S Govt has admitted to since the 1950’s with their Davey Crocket rifle, and more recently with a physicist’s testimony to Congress. It is also documented fact that since the 1960’s, and Project Plowshare, low radiation nukes-- and later neutron bombs-- have been available, and were planned for excavation projects and such. My “many small nukes” WTC hypothesis indicates that numerous low yield nukes went off INSIDE (near the center of) the towers. They vaporized anything near them (via million degree temperatures and/or high neutron flux), but the yield of these micro-nukes was deliberately small enough not to vaporize the outer structure. This also ensured that any radiation was contained during detonation. And Plowshare, and neutron bombs, prove low radiation nukes have been available for decades.
*********************************************
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/

 

[MacGyver1968]

That's ok, I'll provide a link for you on what appears to be EMP evidence:
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2008/05/summary-of-evidence-of-emps.html

If there was an EMP then most electronic devices in the area would have burned out. This just didn't happen. If that was the case, you would have seen all those video camera go out and the exact moment of the emp. You just don't see that...they keep rolling, without even a hitch. And Scott, you've not commented on why we don't hear or see a massive shockwave that a nuke would create.

In your link, the author talks about car doors having enough current running through them to heat them enough to melt the paint. Dude...im an EET...that's a shitload of current. If this were the case, any metal surface in the area would have seen the exact same result....they don't.

Dude...seriously....it's not even slightly feasible. You just can't hide a nuke of any size going off. Period.

 

[scott3x]

If there was an EMP then most electronic devices in the area would have burned out. This just didn't happen. If that was the case, you would have seen all those video camera go out and the exact moment of the emp. You just don't see that...they keep rolling, without even a hitch. And Scott, you've not commented on why we don't hear or see a massive shockwave that a nuke would create.

In your link, the author talks about car doors having enough current running through them to heat them enough to melt the paint. Dude...im an EET...that's a shitload of current. If this were the case, any metal surface in the area would have seen the exact same result....they don't.

You have evidence of that?

Dude...seriously....it's not even slightly feasible. You just can't hide a nuke of any size going off. Period.

You claim this, "but I remain unconvinced". You may want to take a look at this video to get a little flare to that line; it's about 2:50 in ...
http://www.wegame.com/watch/Killing_illidan_2/

Here's an excerpt I'm not sure you saw from the link I mentioned:
*************************************
The intensity of an EMP from a nuke is determined by the strength/yield of the nuke, altitude of detonation, its type and design. In general, the smaller the nuke, the smaller the strength and effective range of the EMP it will produce. A multi-megaton nuke exploded in the upper atmosphere can cause a continent-wide EMP. A micro-nuke would yield an EMP of only some fraction of a mile. Possibly only a couple of blocks depending on where it was detonated, shielding etc. In my articles, I have repeatedly highlighted eyewitness accounts of phenomena that appear to ONLY be explainable via EMPs.
*************************************

 

[MacGyver1968]

Here's a little science lesson for you Scott. Whenever a current moves through a conductor it creates an electromagnetic field around that conductor...on the other hand when an electromagnet field passes over a conductor, a voltage is "induced" into that conductor. This is the basic principle of a transformer.

EMP's destroy electronics, because electronics run on very low dc voltages...some chips run on 3 volts or less. When the EMP passes over the electronic circuit, it induces a much greater voltage than the chips are design to take and they fry. Even a high power nuke would not produce a great enough EMP to induce enough current to melt paint off car doors, as your source indicates as proof of an EMP..that would require serious amounts of current. (car doors have shitloads of surface area, and could dissipate the current to ground without ever getting hot)

Even the smallest of emp's would have caused a moment of static in all of the magnetic video tapes of the collapse at the exact same time..you just don't see that. There were not reports of computers being fried in the general vicinity of the WTC. You don't see something burning hotter than the freaking sun on the video...sorry, but a missile flying into the Pentagon is more feasible.

 

[scott3x]

Here's a little science lesson for you Scott. Whenever a current moves through a conductor it creates an electromagnetic field around that conductor...on the other hand when an electromagnet field passes over a conductor, a voltage is "induced" into that conductor. This is the basic principle of a transformer.

EMP's destroy electronics, because electronics run on very low dc voltages...some chips run on 3 volts or less. When the EMP passes over the electronic circuit, it induces a much greater voltage than the chips are design to take and they fry. Even a high power nuke would not produce a great enough EMP to induce enough current to melt paint off car doors, as your source indicates as proof of an EMP..that would require serious amounts of current. (car doors have shitloads of surface area, and could dissipate the current to ground without ever getting hot)

Even the smallest of emp's would have caused a moment of static in all of the magnetic video tapes of the collapse at the exact same time..you just don't see that. There were not reports of computers being fried in the general vicinity of the WTC. You don't see something burning hotter than the freaking sun on the video...sorry, but a missile flying into the Pentagon is more feasible.

(ponders). Unlike Headspin, I frequently find that I can't refute certain things. I simply don't have his technical expertise. Since he has never said that he believes in the possibility of mini nukes, I will leave this for now.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Access is not the same thing as having a good chance to examine the steel.

The point is that it wasn’t spirited away quickly and anyone could have grabbed a piece.

I think it's time I quote a small piece from 9/11 Research. The actual page includes links on certain words:
*******************************
WTC Attack Evidence

Destroyed, Missing, and Surviving Evidence of the September 11th Attack

A crime as massive as the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center necessarily leaves a large body of evidence in its wake. What is remarkable is how much of the evidence was destroyed, and how much has been hidden from public view.

Most of the primary physical evidence was destroyed. A great deal of indirect evidence that could shed light on the peculiarities of the attacks -- like the unprecedented collapse of skyscrapers -- has been bottled up by authorities. In spite of the destruction and suppression of evidence, a large body of surviving evidence is available to people wishing to investigate the attack.

A review of the status of the evidence about the World Trade Center attack reveals a clear pattern. The most valuable and informative evidence was destroyed expeditiously. Attempts by individuals to gather evidence, as in photographing Ground Zero, were vigorously blocked. Government agencies suppressed evidence that should be a matter of public record. What the surviving evidence seems to have in common is that it was never under the control of any government agency or corporation involved in the response to September 11.
*******************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/index.html

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

the tower did come down in a symetrical way, even if a fair amount of steel was shot outwards in an explosive manner.

Demolition charges do not shoot out tons of steel in such a manner. The 'explosive manner' came from god knows how many tons of building collapsing on itself.

You labour on with the official absurdity that the building pancaked down due to planes and fire alone, while NIST had to jury rig its computer simulation just to get the building 'poised for collapse' and, having labored to get to that point, doesn't even -try- to get the simulation to the actual collapse of the building.

 

[scott3x]

A question to ponder: why is it that people knew that WTC 7 was going to come down hours before it actually did? Who precisely informed people that this would happen? The BBC reported that the building would collapse -before it actually did-. When BBC finally dealt with this issue, it simply passed the buck along, saying that it had gotten its information from Reuters. Passing the buck along is fine (it certainly gets the BBC off the hook), but it still doesn't answer the question.

The firefighters knew/thought it was going to collapse based on their on-going observations on the deterioration of the tower throughout the day. Go ahead and make your conspiracy theory all the more ridiculous by implicating these men.

I haven't accused the firefighters of anything. However, I do think you should take a look at the following:

**********************************
Foreknowledge of WTC 7's Collapse

Of the two principle theories of WTC 7's collapse -- one being global structural failure due to prior debris impact and ongoing fire damage, and the other being controlled demolition -- the second is favored by foreknowledge of the collapse. This is particularly true given the lack of precedent of total collapses of steel framed structures during fires. So unprecedented was the collapse of Building 7 that the government has yet to explain it, in 2007 [they've now finally come up with some lame reasoning].

That would probably be lost on most responders on the site, who would have the fresh memories of the Twin Towers' explosions to help them accept the notion that the total of collapse of smoking skyscrapers is a natural and even predictable occurrence.

Witness reports show that officials who controlled the streets around WTC 7 evacuated the area in the hour before the 5:20 PM collapse, and that various officials forwarded verbal warnings conveying certainty that the collapse would occur. Network television broadcasts contain announcements of the collapse at least as 23 minutes before the event.
Witness Accounts of Foreknowledge

This overview of witness accounts shows that the evacuation of the area surrounding WTC 7 started sometime around 4 PM, and was completed only a few minutes before the 5:20 collapse. The warnings of the collapse, which are recalled in dozens of accounts by emergency responders, show a striking consistency of conviction that the collapse would occur.
**********************************
http://www.wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html

 

[shaman_]

I think it's time I quote a small piece from 9/11 Research. The actual page includes links on certain words:
*******************************
WTC Attack Evidence

Destroyed, Missing, and Surviving Evidence of the September 11th Attack

A crime as massive as the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center necessarily leaves a large body of evidence in its wake. What is remarkable is how much of the evidence was destroyed, and how much has been hidden from public view.

Most of the primary physical evidence was destroyed. A great deal of indirect evidence that could shed light on the peculiarities of the attacks -- like the unprecedented collapse of skyscrapers -- has been bottled up by authorities. In spite of the destruction and suppression of evidence, a large body of surviving evidence is available to people wishing to investigate the attack.

A review of the status of the evidence about the World Trade Center attack reveals a clear pattern. The most valuable and informative evidence was destroyed expeditiously. Attempts by individuals to gather evidence, as in photographing Ground Zero, were vigorously blocked. Government agencies suppressed evidence that should be a matter of public record. What the surviving evidence seems to have in common is that it was never under the control of any government agency or corporation involved in the response to September 11.
*******************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/index.html

Nothing new there same old claims. .. Thousands of photographs of ground zero were taken. .. Silly claims that it was suspicious that the steel was recycled. It was one of the darkest days in American history and the New York streets looked like a battleground. Should they have left it there? Should they have given up on the possibility of survivors? Should they have put the pieces of steel on Ebay? These questions will wasted on you if you think taking six months to remove all the steel is speedy and suspicious…..

The steel was investigated by experts and those experts put forward their conclusions. You don’t like their conclusions so you just ignore them. You are welcome to choose your own reality I guess.

What you are doing is the equivalent of looking over the body of someone who was shot thirty times, declared by a doctor to be dead as a result of the shooting, and complaining that he may have been poisoned and a major investigation must be launched.

 

[KennyJC]

You labour on with the official absurdity that the building pancaked down due to planes and fire alone, while NIST had to jury rig its computer simulation just to get the building 'poised for collapse' and, having labored to get to that point, doesn't even -try- to get the simulation to the actual collapse of the building.

NIST had to tweak their simulation to see which scenario resulted in a collapse. How is it possible to have a computer simulation without first tweaking it? If truthers had an equally powerful simulation program, their job would be to tweak the simulation until it can be shown to have collapsed in the manner it did with thermite or whatever the hell you think was used.

And the reason they did not simulate the actual collapse of the building is because it is impossible. Not even the most powerful computer on Earth can calculate the exact position of each one of the millions of building components and the exact physical forces that were involved.

Even if it were possible, why would you want to spend more years and millions of dollars on such an irrelevant issue? If the computer models show that fire was enough to initiate the collapse, then there is little value in knowing every minute detail on every square foot of the WTC.