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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Headspin said:
explosions were heard for miles, they were witnessed and heard from hoboken harbour.
Click to expand...

Haha... that old chestnut. You expect me to believe that cameras almost directly underneath the towers as they collapsed did not record a single explosion, but one lone camera 2 miles away did? The sound heard from that camera could be explained by something as simple as wind on the microphone or sound from a train which was a stones throw away.

We can certainly rule out that the sounds were coming from lower Manhattan and instead being local to the area.

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
Click to expand...

Ok.

Firstly, the video would have looked less ridiculous if it didn't have the dramatic music. It just makes it cheesy.

The first part of the video, there is an undisputable explosion. However, what's not clear is where the explosion is coming from and what time of day it occurred. If you can prove it came from WTC7 moments before it collapsed that would really be something. Of all the footage I've seen of the collapse of WTC7, no explosion was heard. Exactly the same thing that happened with WTC1 + WTC2. So you really have to scrap this bomb theory and go back to the thermite theory after you prove that thermite can remotely cut a thick steel beam horizontally.

The next chunk of video exploits unconfirmed reports and confused testimony of bombs which do nothing to prove that bombs were used.

At the 3:55 mark of the video, as I expected (but didn't realize I would have to wait that long), they used video of firefighters saying there was "a bomb in the building". The building he is talking about of course is Stuyvesant High School. This footage when viewed in it's full context is pretty clear that the fire fighters were not saying there was a bomb in any of the WTC buildings:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHShDDHbTq4

Immediately after that, they use eye witness testimony about explosions in the elevator shafts to misrepresent that there were bombs. Ignited jet fuel traveling down the elevator shaft of WTC1 is well documented. People in the basement reported smelling kerosene after the explosion; people in the lobby were burned as they stood in front of elevator doors. Get it? Understood?

Ahh... Barry Jennings at 7:30. You should know he protested at his comments being misrepresented by truthers. I have a feeling most of the people shown in this video would also be repulsed at how their comments have been portrayed by slimy people like you.

After that, we here more eyewitnesses detailing the "explosions". However most of them appear to be telling of the collapse of the building itself which we can all hear from the cameras that were close to the tower as it collapsed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBOd1XB943o

Had no footage of the collapses existed, I may have been more influenced by the bomb theory. But since I can see it for myself and hear no bombs, it's safe to say the explosion they are describing is the sound of the tower collapsing under its own volition.

I laughed at the very end of the video. I thought it was a very apt representation of troofers.
 
Miragememories said:
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
Click to expand...

What's your alternative?

Please explain the why and the how for me. Conspiracy theories surrounding WTC7 strike me as being completely asinine.
 
Headspin said:
explosions were heard for miles, they were witnessed and heard from hoboken harbour.
Click to expand...

OK. So why did the thermite explode, making "explosions that were heard for miles"? Thermite doesn't explode. It hisses and burns. I've used it.
 
Man, I forgot. And it's placed by nanobots. Fired from a nanogun. And they play NanoPlaystations when they're, like, bored.

And they were invented by someone with a nanobrain.
 
GeoffP said:
Man, I forgot. And it's placed by nanobots. Fired from a nanogun. And they play NanoPlaystations when they're, like, bored.

And they were invented by someone with a nanobrain.
Click to expand...

GeoffP, I can buy that you're a geneticist, but that doesn't qualify you to know recent advances in explosives. Please take a look at the links that me and/or miragememories have provided. In case you missed them, here they go again. Mine:

http://wearechangeseattle.org/2008/...etween-nist-and-nano-thermites-by-kevin-ryan/

And Headspin's:
https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html
 
GeoffP said:
Look, it's nanoScott!
Click to expand...

Yeah, hah hah. I have a feeling you may never go to either link I posted. So I decided to excerpt a little piece:
***Those committing the crimes needed to create fire where it would not have existed otherwise, and draw attention toward the part of the buildings where the planes impacted (or in the case of WTC 7, away from the building altogether).

This was most probably accomplished through the use of nano-thermites, which are high-tech energetic materials made by mixing ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum and UFG metal oxides; usually iron oxide, molybdenum oxide or copper oxide, although other compounds can be used (Prakash 2005, Rai 2005). The mixing is accomplished by adding these reactants to a liquid solution where they form what are called “sols”, and then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive combinations in their intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000). The resulting “sol-gel” is then dried to form a porous reactive material that can be ignited in a number of ways.

The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far higher rate of energy release than is seen in “macro” thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites “high explosives” as well as pyrotechnic materials (Tillitson et al 1999). Sol-gel nano-thermites, are often called energetic nanocomposites, metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) or superthermite (COEM 2004, Son et al 2007), and silica is often used to create the porous, structural framework (Clapsaddle et al 2004, Zhao et al 2004). Nano-thermites have also been made with RDX (Pivkina et al 2004), and with thermoplastic elastomers (Diaz et al 2003). But it is important to remember that, despite the name, nano-thermites pack a much bigger punch than typical thermite materials.

It turns out that explosive, sol-gel nano-thermites were developed by US government scientists, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) (Tillitson et al 1998, Gash et al 2000, Gash et al 2002). ***
 
MacGyver1968 said:
Sprayed on thermite? Before the fireproofing was installed?
Click to expand...

Apparently, it -was- the fireproofing:
***have you considered nano alumino-thermic explosives technology manufactured as "frozen smoke"?....

Aerogels/frozen-smoke is an amazing insulator too, excellent for fireproofing.

fireproofing work carried out in the towers seemed to match the exact floors where the planes impacted:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272***

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=44231&t=99915
 
scott3x said:
Yeah, hah hah. I have a feeling you may never go to either link I posted. So I decided to excerpt a little piece:
***Those committing the crimes needed to create fire where it would not have existed otherwise, and draw attention toward the part of the buildings where the planes impacted (or in the case of WTC 7, away from the building altogether).

This was most probably accomplished through the use of nano-thermites, which are high-tech energetic materials made by mixing ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum and UFG metal oxides; usually iron oxide, molybdenum oxide or copper oxide, although other compounds can be used (Prakash 2005, Rai 2005). The mixing is accomplished by adding these reactants to a liquid solution where they form what are called “sols”, and then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive combinations in their intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000). The resulting “sol-gel” is then dried to form a porous reactive material that can be ignited in a number of ways.

The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far higher rate of energy release than is seen in “macro” thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites “high explosives” as well as pyrotechnic materials (Tillitson et al 1999). Sol-gel nano-thermites, are often called energetic nanocomposites, metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) or superthermite (COEM 2004, Son et al 2007), and silica is often used to create the porous, structural framework (Clapsaddle et al 2004, Zhao et al 2004). Nano-thermites have also been made with RDX (Pivkina et al 2004), and with thermoplastic elastomers (Diaz et al 2003). But it is important to remember that, despite the name, nano-thermites pack a much bigger punch than typical thermite materials.

It turns out that explosive, sol-gel nano-thermites were developed by US government scientists, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) (Tillitson et al 1998, Gash et al 2000, Gash et al 2002). ***
Click to expand...

Just a practical question here... even if all of the above is true, how does the "nanothermite" remain unignited even after the plane hit and the fires the followed?
 
KennyJC said:
Just a practical question here... even if all of the above is true, how does the "nanothermite" remain unignited even after the plane hit and the fires the followed?
Click to expand...

The question is, did it remain unignited?

***...the demolition hypothesis should be considered more than just simple demolition. If the idea was to create the appearance of a fire-induced collapse, then a fiery presentation was needed, much more than the jet fuel/office furnishings would have been able to provide. It seems that thermate may have been used not only to weaken or cut the steel infrastructure throughout the buildings, but also to help create that fiery presentation near the floors of impact.***

http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272
 
I did. The thermite reaction wouldn't change. Your not changing the chemistry of the reaction. It just has more surface area, allowing for faster burning. It still doesn't detonate. Why would you need this away..just use regular explosives.
 
MacGyver1968 said:
I did. The thermite reaction wouldn't change. Your not changing the chemistry of the reaction. It just has more surface area, allowing for faster burning. It still doesn't detonate.
Click to expand...

Things that go above the speed of sound emit a sonic boom. From a post in this forum by miragememories:
***"nanothermite composite leads to a fast propagating combustion, generating shock waves with Mach numbers up to 3"

Mach 3 is equivalent to 1,020 m/s.

"High explosives...detonates at rates ranging from 1,000 to 9,000 meters per second"***

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2030501&postcount=1020

MacGyver1968 said:
Why would you need this away..just use regular explosives.
Click to expand...

To "create the appearance of a fire-induced collapse"

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2032182&postcount=1078
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top