9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)
- Thread starter Stryder
- Start date
- Status
Actually, it was Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood that advocated the "star wars beam".
http://www.drjudywood.com/
It's very easy to forget which nutjob said which moronic statement.
Apparently, that may have been done on atleast one of them as well. The size of a single bomb on a plane that would bring about the complete destruction of an entire building, however; I'm almost thinking nuke. Essentially, the idea is that they didn't want to do -that- much damage. Thus, the buildings falling into their own footprint, minimizing the damage to nearby buildings (and yes, I know that some nearby buildings were still gravely affected, but it's nothing compared to the damage that would have been done if the WTC buildings had fallen at an angle as normal building pancakes occur).
So what though? Why would the Lizardoid cabal want to minimize damage at all? And if a bomb were on the plane, why wouldn't the cabal just announce "Hey, forget all that steel melting stuff; we found evidence of a bomb on the plane!" Wouldn't this wrap up all the loose ends? But they didn't announce this, because there wasn't a bomb, and because they didn't do it. And how do you know that the building would have fallen at an angle if there were a bomb anyway? And why would it need to be almost a nuke?? You've already proposed that the buildings were brought down by conventional explosives.
Geoff
Geoff
The argument is that some if not all of the leaders of it are american citizens; essentially, they wanted enough to scare the people into being able to pass legislation like the patriot act, keep the war machine going and making lots of oil money. I suggest you take a look at Zeitgeist, wherein someone within it confesses that one of the rockefellers told a (no longer) fan of him what was going to happen before it happened. And he's certainly not the only person who has come out; others did it before 9/11 even happened.
Getting box cutters through airport security is one thing; a bomb of the size to level the WTC buildings is quite another. And the damage would almost undoubtedly been a great deal more; if it were a single bomb instead of explosives on many floors, it would have had to have packed quite a punch.
There is talk that atleast one of the planes that hit on of the WTC towers was indeed carrying a bomb. I saw a video that looked convincing to me. The idea is that the plane was military, not a commercial one. Yes, in this theory, it leaves the question of, what happened to the original plane. 9/11 is full of mysteries. However, even if it did carry a bomb, it clearly wasn't enough to level the WTC building.
In order to get the demolition style implosion that you got 3 times on 9/11, the explosives have to be placed very carefully on many floors. Without this careful planning, the laws of physics would rule that the building would try to fall in the path of least resistance; that is, into open air instead of onto perfectly solid lower floors.
Yes, there would have been; deception. Take a look at this:
*************************************************************
The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure suggests that spray-on nano-thermite materials may have been applied to the steel components of the WTC buildings, underneath the upgraded fireproofing (Ryan 2008). This could have been done in such a way that very few people knew what was happening. The Port Authority’s engineering consultant Buro Happold, helping with evaluation of the fireproofing upgrades, suggested the use of “alternative materials” (NIST 2005). Such alternative materials could have been spray-on nano-thermites substituted for intumescent paint or Interchar-like fireproofing primers (NASA 2006). It seems quite possible that this kind of substitution could have been made with few people noticing.
*************************************************************
http://wearechangeseattle.org/2008/...etween-nist-and-nano-thermites-by-kevin-ryan/
I disagree.
Just answer this: why did the government remove all the videos wherein this matter could have been easily resolved? And why, after all this time, have they only allowed one very poor angled video of the event through? Even in that poorly angled, poor resolution, black and white video, it seems clear to me that it wasn't a commercial airliner and that it was moving too fast as well.
Pentagon Crash
We'll have to agree to disagree here for now.
You have a link that proves this?
I have seen no evidence of this in an uncontrolled burn. I have actually heard that an uncontrolled burn can't exceed about 1200F.
Losing strength is not the same thing as melting.
You have evidence to support this claim?
For starters, because the craft didn't look like a plane, even in the poor resolution video they allowed through:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs
I never said I had all the answers. This one is a mystery to me as well.
We'll have to agree to disagree here for now.
You have a link that proves this?
I have seen no evidence of this in an uncontrolled burn. I have actually heard that an uncontrolled burn can't exceed about 1200F.
Losing strength is not the same thing as melting.
You have evidence to support this claim?
For starters, because the craft didn't look like a plane, even in the poor resolution video they allowed through:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs
I never said I had all the answers. This one is a mystery to me as well.
I have already made it clear that they had plenty of time to do it with the alleged fireproofing 'upgrades'.
Through the fireproofing 'upgrades'. I'll go out on a limb, but perhaps the fireproofing upgrades were done for a very good reason; so that the explosives would only go off when they were remotely detonated. Either that or they did go off when they planes hit. I don't have enough data to decide at present.
Not true. I looked at the first few minutes and pointed out how I thought those first few minutes were flawed. How about you do the same with 911 mysteries?
Which is not correct. Perhaps you could look at post 1118 as you missed it.
Last edited:
Show me this video. I would be more than willing to spend 60 seconds of my time definitively debunking it and exposing you further still as a moron.
Moron. The path of least resistance is straight down due to a thing called gravity. The top of the building isn't going to jump in the air then fall off the side is it?
The blatant stupidity of the truth movement is that they think a single floor of the WTC can withstand the impact of hundreds (thousands?) of tons falling from above.
You seem to forget that this mythical spray on substance would have ignited from the moment the plane impacted. No such thing happened.
In the videos we have, an object the size/shape and colour of a 757 was captured. We have 136 eye witnesses to the event, wreckage and victims remains, confirmation from American Airlines and air traffic control, knocked over lamp posts, visible wreckage on the lawn of the Pentagon, damage which was consistent with an airliner, etc. etc.
Why do we need video to prove it was an airliner when we have all of the above information? Why indeed do you think there is clear video showing what hit the Pentagon? Why would we believe it wasn't an airliner that hit the Pentagon when it was viewed by millions that airliners hit the WTC?
Scott, you have to realize, that as you find troofer answers to everything, you quickly make yourself a bigger moron than what you were to start with. I'm actually getting embarrassed for you.
NanoScott did come across as more reasonable in the beginning. He didn't use lots of upper case, insult people or put them on ignore for disagreeing with him. He even made a show of looking at some of the links provided. However it appears that there is little difference between him and Ganymede. They do both like to talk about how well they are doing.
Scott will automatically accept everything that discredited crackpots say while discarding masses of evidence to the contrary. It is basically a religion. Just as dinosaur fossils can be discarded as a test from god, all the evidence for the official story can be discarded as planted, lies or manufactured by 'NIST types'. The prophet of this religion is Steven Jones. In Scott's eyes nothing could ever invalidate his work because he is the prophet.
Scott will automatically accept everything that discredited crackpots say while discarding masses of evidence to the contrary. It is basically a religion. Just as dinosaur fossils can be discarded as a test from god, all the evidence for the official story can be discarded as planted, lies or manufactured by 'NIST types'. The prophet of this religion is Steven Jones. In Scott's eyes nothing could ever invalidate his work because he is the prophet.
I had seen it before, but I just reread it. I don't see how that post refutes what I just said.
I just did some more research, and there are a fair amount of claims that some images may have been doctored. So perhaps the video I saw was doctored.
That's only the path of least resistance if there is nothing in the way; there's a reason that we don't all fall to the center of the earth; there are things in the way. The same applied in the case of the WTC towers; the stories above would have had to have broken through the stories below. Assuming that any of the stories would have fallen at all if it were only a fire based collapse (seroiusly doubtful), they wouldn't have fallen straight down, but rather to the side, as all other pancaked buildings have fallen.
Some seem to think that it did. But even if it didn't, there was apparently a lot of fireproofing put on certain floors.. perhaps to prevent just such a thing from happening.
I disagree. But tell me, why are 80 videos of the event withheld to this day? Why do they only give us a very poor angle of the vent?
I've heard that it is so. Seriously, why is the FBI withholding these 80 video recordings?
Because of all the evidence that points towards it not being an airliner.
I believe what makes sense. Case in point: I agree with what Steven Jones has to say regarding 9/11, but that doesn't mean that I believe that Jesus visited North America.
This is utterly simplistic. Something can be in the way, but that something may not necessarily be strong enough to withstand whatever object is falling.
Yes, because we do not have enough force to puncture a significant hole in the Earth. A comet or another planet however, could.
Which is not surprising when you bear in mind that each floor could only support so much weight. The top of the tower begins to collapse and the weight instantly placed on the floor system below is simply massive - far beyond what the floor structure was designed for. A domino effect ensues.
Pancaked buildings fall to the side? If so, then it wouldn't be a pancake collapse, would it?
Anyway, there is no way the top of the tower would simply fall off to the side. The building below the collapse point is not a solid object, it is comprised of many many parts. Together they work well, but exposed to excessive loads, they simply give way like a house of cards.
You think that pathetic fireproofing could hold off a "nanothermite" reaction?
Well I don't know a hell of a lot about legal proceedings. I'm guessing it's just red tape that says they can not be released until a certain date. I guess I will look into this
However, I don't think there's any reason to suggest that the 80 videos would show much. The FBI claims that most of these cameras do not even capture the Pentagon building let alone the crash itself.
What evidence is there of it not being an airliner?
This is what I said in my previous post:
In the videos we have, an object the size/shape and colour of a 757 was captured. We have 136 eye witnesses to the event, wreckage and victims remains, confirmation from American Airlines and air traffic control, knocked over lamp posts, visible wreckage on the lawn of the Pentagon, damage which was consistent with an airliner, etc. etc.
You cannot be serious. There are test there where the temperature of the steel goes over 900C. The tests are even posted on a conspiracy site! Yet you keep repeating your religious mantra that steel can't go over 650C.
I even posted a link to steel building which collapsed from burning paper. A bridge collapsed from burning gasoline. The steel frame of the Madrid Tower collapsed from the fire. These things most certainly refute what you are saying....
Granted. However, I wasn't talking about whether the lower floors could withstand the upper floors; I was saying that if the debris could go elsewhere (as in, falling off the sides of the building), it would be following the path of least resistance. The speed at which they fell also makes it clear that it was a controlled demolition.
Yes, but we're not talking about comets here. We're talking about a floor or 2 that allegedly collapsed due to fire.
Actually, the floor structure was designed for jets to hit the structure. It has been compared to mosquito mesh; puncture a hole through a section and the part above it doesn't come tumbling down, because of the massive amount of redundancy. Essentially, the WTC towers are some of the least likely buildings to have fallen down due to fire. And no steel framed building has ever completely collapsed due to fire. In the one case I know of where only a partial collapse occured, the fire was many hours long (the madrid tower I believe).
I've seen that terminology used for buildings that have indeed fallen to the side. Anyway, another point to make here is that 9/11 is the only day wherein buildings that allegedly collapsed due to fire alone fell into their own footprint. Previously, the only buildings that had done this had to be planted with explosives very carefully; even with explosives, it's much easier to get a building to fall to a side.
Steven Jones has this to say about the difficulty in creating a building fall into its own footprint:
************************************************************
The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute [favored by the Law of Increasing Entropy]. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first…
Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it. [Again, consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.]
************************************************************
Why is that?
That may be what NIST would like you to believe, but it's patently false. A steel framed building has never completely collapsed before due to fire alone before or since, regardless of how strong or long the fire raged.
Take a look at this:
******************************************************
*Quoting from the Los Alamos report (from a 2006 talk I gave): “The Super-Thermite electric matches… are safer to use because they resist friction, impact, heat… thereby minimizing accidental ignition.
• “Applications include triggering explosives for demolition”
******************************************************
Cool
Most is not all. And I think it'd be nice if we could see for ourselves, don't you? Apparently some did atleast one over and over, before it was confiscated from them. I'd love to hear what they saw, but first I'd have to find the link where I saw this (so many links).
I personally liked this video:
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm
Ofcourse steel can go over 650C, given the right circumstances. This is what I was quoting:
************************************************************
Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF ... Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100ºF ... And at 1800º it is probably at less than 10 percent. Here the article implies that flame temperatures and steel temperatures are synonymous, ignoring the thermal conductivity and thermal mass of steel, which wicks away heat. In actual tests of uninsulated steel structures subjected to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires conducted by Corus Construction Co. the highest recorded steel temperatures were 680ºF.
************************************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
Can you post that again or link to the post where you say link that?
I've already said that a bridge isn't a steel framed building.
Quite the opposite:
************************************************************
I listened to the morning news on National Public Radio this morning to hear the news of the Windsor Tower in Madrid. Had it collapsed in a mushroom cloud of concrete dust? Had metal beams been thrown tens of meters sideways as the tower fell to the ground in a few seconds after burning "like a candle" for nearly 24 hours?
How odd. There were no news reports about the Edificio Windsor near the Corte de Ingles (note the connections to Rio Tinto, who owns the land they stand on).
This was incredibly odd. If the building was still standing after burning like a torch for 24 hours, then something is very wrong with either our building techniques in the USA - or something is very wrong with the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team study carried out by engineers with the American Society of Civil Engineers at the World Trade Center in 2001-2002.
If the building had fallen, well then the theory advanced by the BPAT, that fire can cause steel framed concrete building to fall into piles of rubble, would have been validated.
So, I listened. And I listened. Nothing. NPR was not interested in this event and what it had to say about 9/11.
************************************************************
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2796
So why would they care? 5000 American dead already in Iraq. What would it matter to them? Your argument makes no sense
Not at all. If the secret cabal is in on it, it would have been absurdly easy to insert someone to look the other way as bombs were loaded; in particular, this "frozen smoke" would have elicited no alarm as it doesn't look like an explosive.
Don't be absurd; the level of damage would have been irrelevant to the Lizardoid conspiracy and the level of damage could have been picked entirely as desired according to the size of the bomb.
I
Sigh. First there's no bomb, then there is a bomb; are you deliberately vague or trying to leave some wiggle room?
But why does the collapse only occur at the impact site? it's almost as though it were hit by a plane or something.
And so what? This would matter nothing to the Lizardoid cabal.
Again; you would have to demonstrate that such materials were used, that the materials were not simply substandard fireproofing, and even that there was any fireproofing on at all. You would also have to demonstrate that such materials could be sprayed on, as you suggest.
Then you are wrong.
Remove which videos?
I can see the airliner quite clearly in that frame. It has a very distinct tailfin. But how exactly are you able to tell the speed of the object from the single frame in which it occurs, if I may ask?
And why is the object the size of a commercial airliner? Did they built the missile that large? What did they use, a Polaris or something?There is no need; only ignorance would require such a link. It is quite apparent from the actual 50% strength loss temperature of steel and the fire in the building that was vastly above that point. Here, look at this link:
So the mean temperature of a gas fire is 1150F! That's above the point at which steel strength drops to 50%. Add in a plane impact, and there we are. I'm glad I reviewed that site.
Well, gasoline fires melt steel, as we've seen. I think that's that argument about wrapped up. Did you have anything else to contribute on this one before we close it?
It utterly did.
But not to me.
YOu mean you haven't figured out how the observations must fit in your predetermined hypothesis.
Well, I took your advice and did. I watched the first few minutes. Then I decided those first few minutes were hopelessly flawed, and left.
Geoff
- Status