Did you even read the quoted material?
Look, at this point, I can see the writing on the wall. The beginning post clearly shows what a sloppy job NIST did. I don't care if you have 1000 NIST types backing it up, garbage is garbage.
9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)
- Thread starter Stryder
- Start date
- Status
Did you even read the quoted material?
Look, at this point, I can see the writing on the wall. The beginning post clearly shows what a sloppy job NIST did. I don't care if you have 1000 NIST types backing it up, garbage is garbage.
Actually, I did read some of it. I even linked to it in a post. And what I read was enough.
"Yeah, well, I guess they can only make you believe what you want to believe"- Memento.
Anyway, you keep on believing NIST if you want to.
I'm neither but it's clear NIST did an awful job. But if you can't see that (or don't want to see that), you go right ahead and keep on believing their fancy computer work.
There are some things that both sides agree on, but their work on how the towers fell is just plain awful.
Not to worry. It just takes a lot of BS, fist-shaking, appeals to authority, appeals to the "reasonable person" fallacy, and every trick in the book. Thus NIST's work will be validated.
I hope most of the readers understand how I just dissed them.
Right here my man...
The timing this information came out is funny as well...but I'm sure the coincidence theorists will see it simply as yep, a coincidence.
Oh and my mistake, it's about every 10 minutes $2 million goes missing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlnQ...at-off-topic/40597-anyone-else-seen-ufos.html
[/QUOTE]
2 of your 3 points are up for debate and you may be right, but I stand to disagree with you about flight 93...have you seen the footage of the crash site?
Highly suspicious to me.
Not to mention Rumsfeld states that it was shot down also...whether that was a slip of the tongue, has his stories mixed up like Bush attempting to remember where he was when he first saw the plane crash into the tower...maybe just more coincidences but man adding all this shit up sure is hard to swallow.
Oh and as for calling me a moron...go fuck yourself faggot.
Last edited:
So if you glued say 5 empty pop cans together end to end, then glued it to the ground standing up for support.
Have the top half of the very top pop can filled with 3,4, or 5 marbles, whatever ratio you think the weight of a plane would be with respect to the entire weight of the building...I don't think it would be very much.
But lets say 5 marbles glued to the top of the inside of the top pop can.
Now, take a blow torch and begin to melt the lower half of the top pop can slowly...I gaurantee you that as you begin to slowly melt one side of the top pop can the top of the can will come down and squash every other pop can straight down into one pile at free fall speed...impossible?...nope...happened on 9/11
Actually I'm just fooling around but if anyone else can think of a better scenario to help explain the collapse of the twin towers I would like to hear it.
It just doesn't make sense to me, but if someone could show me an example it might help.
Have the top half of the very top pop can filled with 3,4, or 5 marbles, whatever ratio you think the weight of a plane would be with respect to the entire weight of the building...I don't think it would be very much.
But lets say 5 marbles glued to the top of the inside of the top pop can.
Now, take a blow torch and begin to melt the lower half of the top pop can slowly...I gaurantee you that as you begin to slowly melt one side of the top pop can the top of the can will come down and squash every other pop can straight down into one pile at free fall speed...impossible?...nope...happened on 9/11
Actually I'm just fooling around but if anyone else can think of a better scenario to help explain the collapse of the twin towers I would like to hear it.
It just doesn't make sense to me, but if someone could show me an example it might help.
Laugh
. I hear you. And to those in this thread who are die hard official story believers, can you atleast -try- to debunk what was said in criticism of NIST's study? Perhaps when official theory people see something they simply can't debunk, they opt to focus on other things. Ah well, let them focus on whatever. The pedigree of x or y PHD, while even a layman can figure out how messed up NIST's theories are.Why would you need engineers if you have physicists and architects?
Well for starters, here's a good video as to how the steel beams were cut (notice that thermite makes very little noise; this in explanation to those who think that demolitions must be super loud):
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=thermite+torch+spectre&sitesearch=#
I believe thermite was used in conjuction with more conventional explosives, although clearly they didn't detonate as usual on WTC 1 and 2; the demolition started at the plane crash site instead of from the bottom up; on WTC 7, however, it was indeed from the ground up.
There are engineers, physicists and architects who have said that the official 9/11 collapse story is bogus. And then there are the NIST types; Perhaps the NIST types outnumber the others by a significant margin. But I really don't care. Because, you see, once the fallacies of the NIST collapse theory are put in plain view, as has been done in my OP, you don't even need to have a degree in order to understand how ludicrous the claim is. Unless, ofcourse, you're an official story true believer, in which case I think God would have to descend from the heavens before they could change their mind. Right now, I'm not even sure anyone's going to take me up on -trying- to debunk what the OP says. Sad really, but I guess I should have expected it.
The total lack of evidence for these claims is clearly not a problem for a die hard believer.
Your evidence for explosives has been shown to be nothing but dismal cherry picking of witness testimony.
Your evidence for thermite relies on the loony Dr Steven Jones, who is too scared submit his research for a relevant peer review.
Like when frustrated conspiracy theorists have all their claims neatly debunked so they just start new threads.Laugh
Hey lets move on to building seven again...
What about the pentagon there must be a conspiracy in here somewhere.
Structural engineers specialise in the design and construction of buildings bridges ect. They know more about it than a physicist who's field is cold fusion.
OK, compare the size of the container that contained the thermite in that video, and then look up the cross section of the supports in the WTC.
Do you not think that containers of appropriate relative size might have been difficult to install, and what's more, impossible to conceal?
Also a lot of the strength of the WTC was in the external structure, which was breached, of course.
No one seems to get what I'm trying to say; either that, or they're willfully trying to ignore it. Look, I couldn't have come up with the arguments that were presented in the OP. Perhaps some engineers were indeed used to come up with them. But I can -understand- what the results mean; they mean that NIST did sloppy work, perhaps with the understanding that their simulations -had- to have a scenario wherein they would fall down due to fire alone. And that they tweaked the numbers so much that you could say that they created a fairy-tale 9/11 just so that the tower would fall for the reasons they wanted it to fall. Why couldn't they have considered a demolition scenario? From everything I've heard, the numbers wouldn't have had to have been tweaked if they'd considered that approach.
My claims weren't all "neatly debunked". I just abandoned the other threads because I realized that in this thread, I'd touched official story bedrock and found that its foundation can be toppled by a stiff breeze. The bedrock of the official story on the WTC collapse is the NIST reports. And they're just plain bad science.
Perhaps it'd be easier if I did. But it seems clear that even with WTC 1 and 2, the official story arguments are so flawed that you really don't need a degree to understand how they're flawed; you just need others who know more about such things to explain how the results are so flawed.
Yes, the pentagon story is full of holes too. But my life has suddenly gotten busier and it may stay that way; I may not have the time to respond to every post anymore, so I have to choose what I respond to. And frankly, it hurts that while I have always tried to show where the arguments of official story people are mistaken, no official story person seems interested in showing where the arguments of Jim Hoffman is. Heck, he's even citing UK experts. To wit:
http://physics911.net/stevenjones
Last edited:
Difficult perhaps, impossible, no. I certainly feel that the subject should be further investigated, however.
I suggest that you check out the following thread to see what's wrong with the official story on the WTC Tower Collapses:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84895
9/11- Theory as to how thermite and explosives were placed
I'm placing this in its own thread as the 'how could they have placed bombs in the WTC buildings unnoticed' has come up several times.
There were some emergency drills before 9/11 that may have been used to place bombs throughout the building. Again from ""The Terror Conspiracy", page 49-50:
"..if there were bombs in the towers, how did they get there?
With the buildings turned to powdered ash and the metal quickly hauled away, no one will ever be certain but some interesting theories have been advanced...
..[a] theory emerged after Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked on the 47th floor of the South Tower, told People magazine that in the weeks preceeding 9/11 there were numerous unusual and unannounced "drills" in which sections of both towers as well as Building 7 were evacuated for "security reasons." These drills could have provided a perfect cover for persons planting explosives.
Reporting in The American Reporter, an electronic daily newspaper, Margie Burns cited President Bush's younger brother, Marvin P. Bush, as a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm.
Securacom has since changed its name to Stratesec, but is still backed by KuwAm. Marvin Bush, who did not respond to repeated interview requests from The American Reporter, is no longer on the board of either company and has not been linked with any terrorist activities. According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."
Many people lost their lives in the collapse of the Twin Towers because the public address system advised workers to return to their desks. Who exactly ordered that broadcast over the loudspeakers in the South Tower as workers were trying to evacute, "Remain calm, damage is in Tower One. Return to your desks."? Many people lost their lives because of these announcements. Minutes later the towers collapsed unexpectedly."
I'm placing this in its own thread as the 'how could they have placed bombs in the WTC buildings unnoticed' has come up several times.
There were some emergency drills before 9/11 that may have been used to place bombs throughout the building. Again from ""The Terror Conspiracy", page 49-50:
"..if there were bombs in the towers, how did they get there?
With the buildings turned to powdered ash and the metal quickly hauled away, no one will ever be certain but some interesting theories have been advanced...
..[a] theory emerged after Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked on the 47th floor of the South Tower, told People magazine that in the weeks preceeding 9/11 there were numerous unusual and unannounced "drills" in which sections of both towers as well as Building 7 were evacuated for "security reasons." These drills could have provided a perfect cover for persons planting explosives.
Reporting in The American Reporter, an electronic daily newspaper, Margie Burns cited President Bush's younger brother, Marvin P. Bush, as a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm.
Securacom has since changed its name to Stratesec, but is still backed by KuwAm. Marvin Bush, who did not respond to repeated interview requests from The American Reporter, is no longer on the board of either company and has not been linked with any terrorist activities. According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."
Many people lost their lives in the collapse of the Twin Towers because the public address system advised workers to return to their desks. Who exactly ordered that broadcast over the loudspeakers in the South Tower as workers were trying to evacute, "Remain calm, damage is in Tower One. Return to your desks."? Many people lost their lives because of these announcements. Minutes later the towers collapsed unexpectedly."
- Status