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

[scott3x]

Wow, I see the spooks are still attempting to do their job. It's easy to spot the spooks, 95% of the threads they post are directed towards debunking conspiracy theories.

I have noticed that sock puppy in particular seems to be fully dedicated to the 9/11 conspiracies. He seems like an amicable fellow though (although he seems to have it in for canadians ;-p). Sometimes I think he's using a sock puppet (the name does tend to suggest it) because he may sometimes get a little hot under the collar concerning this theme (it is certainly a very emotional one for many people) and thus anticipates that when talking about this subject he might get banned.

 

[Ganymede]

I have noticed that sock puppy in particular seems to be fully dedicated to the 9/11 conspiracies. He seems like an amicable fellow though (although he seems to have it in for canadians ;-p). Sometimes I think he's using a sock puppet (the name does tend to suggest it) because he may sometimes get a little hot under the collar concerning this theme (it is certainly a very emotional one for many people) and thus anticipates that when talking about this subject he might get banned.

Anyone who spends a month writing endless psychobabble trying to debunk conspiracies profusely illuminates what their true Intentions are. It's pointless to continue to debate spooks like KennyJC.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to a post from Sock Puppy, from the "Larry Silverstein Exposed.." thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1993717&postcount=234

How about you give me some theories on a better approach? Or are you all talk ;-)?

Simple. Right off the top of my head, the first thing that occurs is a proper bomb in the basement foundations. It would be simpler, it would be more certain, and conventional materials could be used since the entire affair would appear as an 'actual' terrorism attack.

It may look simple, initially; the problem would be that if it were known by everyone that the buildings were demolished, a hell of a lot more attention would have been paid to who might have placed the bombs there. Ever heard of the saying, hiding in plain sight? Well, it can only be done if people don't expect that that's where you're going to be hiding.

More stuff could be delivered - and if you actually think that the Bushies opened up every little wall and planted explosives in WTC 1 and 2 and 7 and all the others without anyone at all noticing, then you must agree that it would be as easy or in actuality far, far easier to do - planted in complete security - merely throw a "Construction in progress" sign across the basement entrance - and bang, done.

I have already mentioned that a security company that may have been used to do it. I've now made a thread for that subject titled "9/11- Theory as to how thermite and explosives were placed ", as it has come up before:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84940

David Ray Griffin has written 4 books on 9/11, something neither you or I have done.

Argument from false authority. He is a priest. (Does he want to be a King-priest?)

He's not a priest, he's is a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology. From wikipedia:

He is currently a co-director of the Center for Process Studies, and one of the foremost contemporary exponents of process theology, founded on the process philosophies of Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne. He is also a leading exponent of conspiracy theories questioning the mainstream account of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin

Anyway, I sincerely believe that your theory is essentially what the pancake theory is.

Then outline how my theory is impossible in your own words, please.

Look, I don't have the time to be trying to figure out why every theory as to how 9/11 collapsed isn't viable. In some things, I will certainly trust others who have done more work on this then either of us. NIST actually doesn't believe in the pancake theory itself at this point: its current theory is elegantly explained by american physicist Steven Jones:

They require that the connections of the floor pans to vertical columns do NOT fail (contrary to FEMA’s model), but rather that the floor pans “pull” with enormous force, sufficient to cause the perimeter columns to significantly pull in, leading to final failure (contrary to objections of ARUP Fire experts, discussed above). Also, NIST constructs a computer model — but realistic cases do not actually lead to building collapse. So they “adjust” inputs until the model finally shows collapse initiation for the most severe cases. The details of these “adjustments” are hidden from us, in their computerized hypotheticals, but “the hypothesis is saved.” NIST also has Underwriters Laboratories construct models of the WTC trusses, but the models withstand all fires in tests and do NOT collapse. (See above for details.)

We are left without a compelling fire/damage model, unless one blindly accepts the NIST computer simulation while ignoring the model fire-tests, which I’m not willing to do. And none of the “official” models outlined above accounts for what happens to the buildings AFTER the building is “poised for collapse” (NIST, 2005, p. 142) — namely the rapid and symmetrical and complete (no tall-standing central core) collapses. Reports of explosions, heard and seen, are not discussed. And they ignore the squibs seen ejected from floors far from where the jets hit — particularly seen in WTC 7 (where no jet hit at all). Finally, what about that molten metal under the rubble piles of all three WTC skyscrapers?

He continues by saying:

Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs — really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.

I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable than the official hypothesis. It deserves scientific scrutiny, beyond what I have been able to outline in this treatise.

http://physics911.net/stevenjones

 

[scott3x]

Anyone who spends a month writing endless psychobabble trying to debunk conspiracies profusely illuminates what their true Intentions are. It's pointless to continue to debate spooks like KennyJC.

I don't mind debating with KennyJC, so long as he keeps his personal attacks to a minimum; when a person seems more interested in attacking the person then their points, I tend to not respond to the post in question.

 

[Sock Puppy]

Wow, I see the spooks are still attempting to do their job. It's easy to spot the spooks, 95% of the threads they post are directed towards debunking conspiracy theories.

So people who disagree with you on this must be (bum bum bum) government agents.

OK. Where's my cheque, then? I'm calling Langley about this.

I have noticed that sock puppy in particular seems to be fully dedicated to the 9/11 conspiracies. He seems like an amicable fellow though (although he seems to have it in for canadians ;-p). Sometimes I think he's using a sock puppet (the name does tend to suggest it) because he may sometimes get a little hot under the collar concerning this theme (it is certainly a very emotional one for many people) and thus anticipates that when talking about this subject he might get banned.

Not in the slightest. I have my own, very different reasons for using the account and not the tiniest fear of being banned.

Anyone who spends a month writing endless psychobabble trying to debunk conspiracies profusely illuminates what their true Intentions are. It's pointless to continue to debate spooks like KennyJC.

Because you'll lose, not because he's with the guv'mint.

Psychobabble? "Wit appears as magic to those who have none."

 

[Sock Puppy]

It may look simple, initially; the problem would be that if it were known by everyone that the buildings were demolished, a hell of a lot more attention would have been paid to who might have placed the bombs there. Ever heard of the saying, hiding in plain sight? Well, it can only be done if people don't expect that that's where you're going to be hiding.

How would this be different in any way? The government claim is that terrorists attacked the WTCs. The claim is the same in my scenario; and it's simpler, too, since it's a straight bomb attack with no airplanes needed. You're wrong here, flatly wrong. In fact, there's already been such an attack; there's been no question that it was anything but what it was - islamic terrorism.

I have already mentioned that a security company that may have been used to do it. I've now made a thread for that subject titled "9/11- Theory as to how thermite and explosives were placed ", as it has come up before:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84940

OK, so why not merely plant more bang in the bottom? Why did they have to supposedly mine each and every floor to "soften it up"?

He's not a priest, he's is a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology. From wikipedia:

Same thing.

Look, I don't have the time to be trying to figure out why every theory as to how 9/11 collapsed isn't viable. In some things, I will certainly trust others who have done more work on this then either of us.

But you only take the opinion of one physicist (and no engineers) against the great majority who do understand the collapse. Why limit yourself to a minority of expert opinion? You prefer this scenario not because you feel you have to take someone's expert opinion, but because you prefer that one expert's opinion.

And your one expert is classically, horribly wrong:

Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs

Meaning he thinks the building falls like a demolition, from the bottom out. But it doesn't. Neither of them do. They fall from the top segment down. Anyone viewing the films of 9/11 can tell this. Has Steven Jones not even seen footage of the building's collapse??

 

[KennyJC]

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.

Not all opinions are equal. You don't get to have your opinion respected when it is garbage. You don't get to say NIST conclusions are garbage especially when every point you bring up is easily debunked.

 

[KennyJC]

Sigh. Listen, I will admit the possibility that some of my conclusions may be off. But I'm not lying to you. Anyway, I know I've already responded to this point, but the response was small. I decided to create a new thread titled "9-11- Why the WTC towers collapsed" in order to address issues of the WTC collapse itself. Maybe by dividing this thread up it will get a little less confusing as to what has already been responded to.

In short, you can't explain the bowing effect because you know it can only mean fire weakened supports.

 

[KennyJC]

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?

..[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.

How are a few brief security drills sufficient to plant explosives in 267 floors in three different buildings?

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."

Why are you still repeating this when I posted a video which completely destroyed its relevance?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh8hErn2UZU

 

[Read-Only]

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."

All of which adds up to exactly nothing.

And that last paragraph is totally a red herring. That announcement was the perfectly sensible thing to do at the time. People were starting to panic in Tower Two because they had heard the noise next door, had gotten some phone calls and shouted to each other that something bad was wrong. Panic reigned as it does when people are scared and confused. NO ONE knew at the time just what had happened and there was NO way they could have possibly known their building would be struck next.

You are also conveniently ignoring the fact that there was about a full 15 minute interval before the second tower was struck.
So whenever someone makes a post like this with fully engaging their brain first, all they succeed in doing is creating more confusion. It serves no other purpose at all.

One final comment: for every doctor of theology or marine biologist you can find that supports the conspiracy theory, I can find one structural engineer or architect who can discount it. You do realize, don't you, that most of the "experts" who support this junk are talking OUT of their chosen profession and field of expertise? That alone should give you cause to blink twice and think just a little bit before buying into what they say.

 

[phlogistician]

Scott3x, all this has been done to death, and all your conspiracy theories have been debunked already. You have nothing new, now, kindly, shut up.

 

[Read-Only]

Scott3x, all this has been done to death, and all your conspiracy theories have been debunked already. You have nothing new, now, kindly, shut up.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who is sick and tired of these inane blathering.

 

[Sock Puppy]

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?"

The question no one can answer.

So they cut the walls open, planted them, and resealed the walls, all with no one noticing.

My theory is that no explosives or thermite were planted; especially not as first Troofers claim the columns were cut with thermite, and then opine as to explosions caused by bombs. But thermite doesn't go "boom". It goes "hissssss". Currently, there is only any evidence for my theory.

 

[Sock Puppy]

Same with the melted steel on the bridge.

The conspiracy is over.

 

[EndLightEnd]

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who is sick and tired of these inane blathering.

I got an idea for you, try exercising that free will of yours and just dont visit these threads!

I know I know, its hard not to troll...

 

[shaman_]

No one seems to get what I'm trying to say; either that, or they're willfully trying to ignore it.

No. We get it. You believe everything that the conspiracy sites say because to the laymen who refuses to look any further it seems convincing.

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,

If you take the word of people outside of their field who's work, once again, has been debunked.

Now if you are going to say, 'show me where it has been debunked' then I will find the links for you but my question then is how you manage to find the conspiracy sites but not the ones who analyze their dodgy claims? Is your Google broken?

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?

Perhaps they did. However there was no evidence to suggest that it was a possible explanation. Your constant misrepresenting of witness testimony does not cut it.

 

[phlogistician]

I got an idea for you, try exercising that free will of yours and just dont visit these threads!

I know I know, its hard not to troll...

I've got an idea for you, if you want to read shit about 9/11, go to some conspiracy nutters website.

We don't need the same old crap posted by some n00b who can't be arsed to read through the archives. It's been done to death, and rebutted, but the as usual, woowoos just wait, and repost the same tired old crap.

 

[kenworth]

http://tvshack.net/tv_shows/South_Park/season_10/episode_9/

 

[EndLightEnd]

I've got an idea for you, if you want to read shit about 9/11, go to some conspiracy nutters website.

We don't need the same old crap posted by some n00b who can't be arsed to read through the archives. It's been done to death, and rebutted, but the as usual, woowoos just wait, and repost the same tired old crap.

There are new points brought up, such as WTC 7 issue, so its not really the same old crap.

But honestly if you really wanted to deter reposts the best thing to do is NOT RESPOND!! Has that really not occurred to you before?

And this is pseudoscience...people are allowed to post whatever they want here ...

 

[shaman_]

There are new points brought up, such as WTC 7 issue, so its not really the same old crap.

Actually no there is nothing new about the 'WTC7 issue'.