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

Status
Not open for further replies.
GeoffP said:
Ha! That's a good one. :D

I notice none of the Troofers will touch it with a ten foot pole.
Click to expand...

no that's not true, no one is avoiding your question, your question is just a little vague "does a gas fire create enough heat to melt steel?" do you mean gasoline or natural gas? if you mean natural gas, there was no natural gas supply to the twin towers, so the question is not relevant. If you mean gasoline then the answer is that gasoline fires will not melt steel girders.

Why do you use the term "troofer", if you are a teenager then i can accept that children enjoy mocking, but if you are an adult then i think you should be more mature. perhaps people avoid you rather than your questions because you act like a baby.
 
Headspin said:
Here is the problem:

KennyJC says "Let's just make it clear that no explosions were heard"

here is a 10 minute video which refutes his claim with a mountain of evidence:
youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

the video documents dozens of independent witnesses describing bombs, explosions and detonating bombs. KennyJC's cannot know there were no explosions, bombs or nanothermite simply by stating "let's just make it clear there were no explosions, bombs or nanothermite", when the evidence is presented right in front of his eyes.
Click to expand...
There were thousands of tetimonies taken. Yes there are some where people describe hearing banging noises they thought were explosions. It may have even been a reasonable guess at the time considering there was a bombing attempt a few years earlier. However there were also many things causing those noises that day that were not bombs. How else would you describe a large banging noise anyway? You talk about evidence but you discard all these possibilities. There is no evidence for bombs other than the pitiful cherry picking of witness testimony, which can be explained.


Headspin said:
When presented with a structual engineer stating "I saw melted girders at the wtc" Shaman says he would like clarification of "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center", but there can be no clarification of this, it is a precise quote with valid context from an expert first hand wtiness. perhaps what he would like is obfuscation rather than clarity, because he cannot deal with what is presented to him right in front of his eyes.
Click to expand...
No you are ignoring the discussion that was at hand. We know that the steel softened. We know that the temperature was more than enough for this to happen. It would have been down to a very small % of its structural strength. The conspiracy theorists make claims of molten metal and references to the melting point of steel. If these girders were still recognizable as girders then they were never liquid. So what he is describing sounds like extremely soft steel, which is not suspicious at all.

It is good that you consider him to be an expert and his testimony to be important. Abolhassan Astaneh, who specializes in structural damage caused by bombings, investigated the steel and found no evidence for bombs. But conspiracy theorists do like to take quotes out of context..


Headspin said:
This is not a scientific discussion of the data.
This is not an investigation into the evidence.
These are not honest conclusions.
This is simply choosing one's own reality, some would say "delusional".

The only question now is WHY Shaman, KennyJC and John99 behave this way and invest so much effort in propping up the official story.
Click to expand...
The question should now be asked why the hell you guys keep bringing it up. Do you ask people in the biology sub forum why they point out the flaws in Intelligent Design? Some people can't help but respond when they see nonsense. You should probably get used to that.
 
Headspin said:
If you mean gasoline then the answer is that gasoline fires will not melt steel girders.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? Very sure? On a scale from 1 to 10, how sure are you?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/04/4318_fuel_tanker_mel.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/truck-fire-melts-bridge/2007/04/30/1177788022254.html

Why do you use the term "troofer", if you are a teenager then i can accept that children enjoy mocking, but if you are an adult then i think you should be more mature. perhaps people avoid you rather than your questions because you act like a baby.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't agree that what they're presenting is the truth. Mostly I do it because it gets Ganymede mad. But just because your feelings are hurt, I'll stop using it for now.
 
Miragememories said:
"It is even more likely that the structural steel that was not in the direct path of the incoming aircraft, as well as the areas which were shielded by the building's heavy steel core columns, would have had most of it's SFRM remain intact."
Click to expand...
KennyJC said:
"What makes you think the core columns had most of its fire proofing when many of the steel columns would have been severed or heavily damaged by the plane?"
Click to expand...

Bolding is mine.

Each Twin Tower core had 47 massive columns.

According to NIST's baseline case estimates, in WTC1, 3 columns were severed (6%) and 4 columns were heavily damaged (8.5%).

Using these best reference estimates, their computer simulation failed to achieve collapse initiation.

According to NIST's baseline case estimates, in WTC2, 5 columns were severed (10.6%) and 4 columns were heavily damaged (8.5%).

Using these best reference estimates, their computer simulation failed to achieve collapse initiation.

Interestingly, Kenny, you consider these estimates to represent "many of the steel columns"

MM
 
I googled "nano thermite, and there were no links except to 911 websites. Hmmm.

Edit: I read your link,

Right now, making energetic materials using the sol-gel technique is in the basic research stage, but results look promising.
Click to expand...

So they don't exist yet.
 
Last edited:
Headspin said:
Here is the problem:

KennyJC says "Let's just make it clear that no explosions were heard"

here is a 10 minute video which refutes his claim with a mountain of evidence:
youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

the video documents dozens of independent witnesses describing bombs, explosions and detonating bombs. KennyJC's cannot know there were no explosions, bombs or nanothermite simply by stating "let's just make it clear there were no explosions, bombs or nanothermite", when the evidence is presented right in front of his eyes.

John99's rebuttal is simply to dismiss the video evidence and first hand witness statements presented right in front of his eyes by inferring "that evidence doesn't exist", declaring that he doesn't need to give reasons for dismissing it, pleading with us to subscribe to a "belief" in the official story.

When presented with a structual engineer stating "I saw melted girders at the wtc" Shaman says he would like clarification of "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center", but there can be no clarification of this, it is a precise quote with valid context from an expert first hand wtiness. perhaps what he would like is obfuscation rather than clarity, because he cannot deal with what is presented to him right in front of his eyes.

This is not a scientific discussion of the data.
This is not an investigation into the evidence.
These are not honest conclusions.
This is simply choosing one's own reality, some would say "delusional".

The only question now is WHY Shaman, KennyJC and John99 behave this way and invest so much effort in propping up the official story.
Click to expand...

The problem you face however, is that if there were bombs in the towers that were used with the intention of demolition, they would be heard for miles... and not limited locally to those inside the towers. They would have smashed windows in the surrounding buildings, they would be picked up by all the cameras and heard by those surrounding the towers also. Instead, cameras (even those very very close to the towers) picked up no sound until after the towers started falling.

Perhaps you should watch a couple of videos of REAL controlled demolitions and you will hear quite clearly from a significant distance the explosives being detonated.

Also, bombs or thermite? Troofers just want both, thus making their hilarious paranoid theories all the more unlikely.
 
Miragememories said:
"Show me your proof that steel was witnessed to have been sufficiently weakened to behave in the manner to which you prescribe?"
Click to expand...
KennyJC said:
"The inward bowing of the perimeter columns and initiation of collapse happened exactly where the fire was doing the most damage. This was seen to happen with both towers.

There is also photographic evidence of the floors sagging to be found here:
http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm"
Click to expand...

That link you provided does not provide photographic evidence of "sagging".
It offers a photographic argument to support "bowing", and concludes that sagging trusses were causing this by "pulling" the perimeter column inward.

I'm not going to argue against the existence of perimeter column "bowing".

What I dispute is the theory that the columns were bowing because floor trusses were "sagging".

sagging
sink gradually under weight

As I've already posted, any steel trusses undergoing heat expansion and unable to force a bulge in the columns that they are end-to-end connected to, would be force to bend.

Bending is not the same as sagging.

bending
force into a curve or angle

A floor truss that truly "sags", is in effect, a dead weight hanging from the end columns to which it is joined, and is no longer able to push back or resist column movement.

A floor truss that is "bent" from resisted heat expansion, may have lost some strength, but is still pushing back (like a spring) against it's end columns.

I'll add that trusses, disconnected from a core which is undergoing an artificially induced failure (controlled demolition), would definitely have sufficient torque to cause bowing in the perimeter columns to which they remain connected.

MM
 
MacGyver1968 said:
I googled "nano thermite, and there were no links except to 911 websites. Hmmm.

Edit: I read your link,

So they don't exist yet.
Click to expand...

not true, aluminothermic nanoenergetic composites have existed since the 1990s, the Simpson document which you quote was even on the net before 9-11.
 
"Nanothermite", heh.

Is it laid down by nanobots? Does it destroy nanobuildings?

...actually that sounds kind of fun.
 
So why would the insiders use such an exotic material, when much more common materials are available and would do the job in a tried and true way? Doesn't make any sense to me. Occam's razor.
 
Yep. More chance it'd be found. Why not just pack the airliner with explosives?
 
Miragememories said:
"It's particularly questioned [NIST's WTC 1 & 2 Final Report], because of NIST's failure to successfully explain the mysterious total high speed collapse of WTC 7."
Click to expand...
KennyJC said:
"Well obviously you ignore the internal failure that preceded the external collapse of WTC7.

A failure of a critical structural element means that the immense weight from above succumbs to gravity. Depending on the structure, it's entirely believable that the whole thing could come down very quickly. It's nothing like that "clunkity-clunk" nutjob stated. It's simply gravity and momentum."
Click to expand...

I am quite interested in anything that offers insight into the internal failure of WTC7.

Remove a building's structural support and gravity will produce it's collapse.

The one thing that was obvious about WTC7, was that it suffered a high speed catastrophic loss of structural support across a complete floor (the size of a football field).

NIST in their final report on WTC7, have come to the amazing conclusion that office furnishing's fires, unaided by physical damage and zero loss of SFRM, managed to create enough heat to bring about the failure of column 79.

On top of this, the NIST expects us to not question their belief that the internal structure of the building suffered total failure over a period of 7 seconds while the complete north face of WTC7 remained calm and displayed a few broken windows.

This theory is used explain the symmetrical collapse of the WTC7 outer shell.

MM
 
Last edited:
KennyJC said:
The problem you face however, is that if there were bombs in the towers that were used with the intention of demolition, they would be heard for miles... and not limited locally to those inside the towers. They would have smashed windows in the surrounding buildings, they would be picked up by all the cameras and heard by those surrounding the towers also. Instead, cameras (even those very very close to the towers) picked up no sound until after the towers started falling.
Click to expand...
explosions were heard for miles, they were witnessed and heard from hoboken harbour. you need to actually watch the video i provided, it details people outside the towers including international media sources describing huge explosions prior to the collapse etc. here it is again:
youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw
 
MacGyver1968 said:
So why would the insiders use such an exotic material, when much more common materials are available and would do the job in a tried and true way? Doesn't make any sense to me. Occam's razor.
Click to expand...
I can think of several reasons that would make sense - nobody would be forensically looking for exotic explosives, thermites can be tailor made to behave as incendaries or high explosives, or anywhere in between. If it was your intention to hide the way the towers came down, then nanothermite looks to an ideal candidate. Applied as a paint coating or a foam direct to the steel beams, the people installing it would have no knowledge of its purpose.

if your intention is to install explosives without the installers knowledge of its purpose, then occams razor actually works in favour of Nanothermite.
 
"Applied as a paint coating or a foam direct to the steel beams, the people installing it would have no knowledge of its purpose."

And who did the application?

Who supplied the company contracted to do the work?

*men in trenchcoats and funny mustaches said here try this*

How was it ignited?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top