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

[EndLightEnd]

Please... I am justified in my insults because fist of all, you are liars. This has been exhibited by you, Scott and Ganymede and is characterized by the truth movement as a whole. We are talking about the murder of thousands of people, and I find it thoroughly distasteful the way you loonies dishonor them. You are not only guilty of failing on an intellectual matter, but you fail morally and ethically too.

Thats funny because I have presented no evidence nor made any claim on this subject other than information (which WAS fact) on WTC7. Your too quick to judge however it seems for rational thought to take place. My only purpose in my last couple of posts was to question your methods, not the evidence. But it seems Ive already been grouped with the, howd you put it, truthers, in your mind even though Ive made no acknowledgement on my position on the matter. Well we all know what assuming does, dont we?

Any neutral spectator can plainly see scott has much more class than you.

You deserve to be called names. And as usual, it is the people on the side of a belief system that object to name calling. The rational folk just brush of name calling from people on the fringes of sanity.

You dont have to brush anything off because the "truthers" have enough composure not to insult on a regular basis. This subject is emotionally loaded as it is, and that is why its so important to not bring that emotion to the discussion; something you are apparently incapable of.

No doubt you would like nothing more for people to sink to your level. Your appeal is to emotion, which has no place in a subject as sensitive as this. But you just cant keep the two seperated can you.

 

[KennyJC]

Thats funny because I have presented no evidence nor made any claim on this subject other than information (which WAS fact) on WTC7. Your too quick to judge however it seems for rational thought to take place. My only purpose in my last couple of posts was to question your methods, not the evidence. But it seems Ive already been grouped with the, howd you put it, truthers, in your mind even though Ive made no acknowledgement on my position on the matter. Well we all know what assuming does, dont we?

I was thinking more of the time when you butchered a Neil Armstrong quote to make it sound like there were aliens on the moon. I was hoping that if it was a mistake, you would have held your hands up, but you didn't correct yourself which compounded my assumption that you were dishonest.

I don't actually remember specific things you have said about 9/11, but given your past it's clear you are a kook.

You dont have to brush anything off because the "truthers" have enough composure not to insult on a regular basis. This subject is emotionally loaded as it is, and that is why its so important to not bring that emotion to the discussion; something you are apparently incapable of.

A spade is a spade. Liars are liars.

No doubt you would like nothing more for people to sink to your level. Your appeal is to emotion, which has no place in a subject as sensitive as this. But you just cant keep the two seperated can you.

Actually most of what I say is based on facts. You can't compete with them, so you only rear your irriational little head when I ridicule any truther on this forum.

Case in point: Scott claimed that that steel could not get anywhere near the atmospheric temperature in an office fire. I gave him irrefutable proof of experiments done on this exact issue which was not carried out by the American government, not related to NIST in any way shape or form, not even related to 9/11 as it was carried out years before. These experiments showed that temperatures almost matched the atmospheric temperatures of an office fire (and even exceeded when fires cooled down and steel temperatures lagged behind). What did Scott do in the face of this evidence? Did he hold his hands up and admit to his error? No. He did the exact same thing you did when I pointed out your Neil Armstrong quote was false... he stayed quiet. After he of course he claimed that these tests were spurious without explaining why.

What is the next logical course after an example like this? Call the guy out for what he really is: Dishonest, stupid or both.

 

[Headspin]

I thought we were talking about the feasibility of any kind of thermite cutting a thick steel beam quickly, remotely and horizontally. Until you prove otherwise, I am saying this is impossible.

Would you agree that if traces of explosives are found, then there is no need to speculate which columns were cut, how the explosives were detonated etc, if our intention is to determinte whether explosives were used?
If you find traces of gunpowder or traces of RDX it is not necessary to find out what gun was used, what columns were cut, what detonator was used. A discovery of explosives is enough to know that explosives were used, do you agree?

But since you're talking about looking for traces of thermite, then you should understand that dust samples were not only investigated by Stephen Jones. All of the debris was cleared away in the clean up operation, and we know this was investigated as your fellow loony (Headspin) provided me with an article from someone who investigated the WTC steel. The steel was warped from the heat of the fire, but no cuts from a thermite source or explosive was found.

That "someone" is Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of California at Berkeley. Let's see what he says in December 2001:

“Where there is a car accident and two people are killed, you keep the car until the trial is over. If a plane crashes, not only do you keep the plane, but you assemble all the pieces, take it to a hangar, and put it together. That’s only for 200, 300 people, when they die. In this case, you had 3,000 people dead. You had a major . . . manmade structure. My wish was that we had spent whatever it takes. . . . Get all this steel, carry it to a lot. Instead of recycling it. . . . After all, this is a crime scene and you have to figure out exactly what happened“ (CBS News, March 12, 2002)."

www.tinyurl.com/3p983l

The steel was warped from the heat of the fire, but no cuts from a thermite source or explosive was found.

This is a shocking statement, the exact quote from Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Professor of Civil Engineering is:
"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."
(as well you know! reread post 903 !)
www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html


The cleanup process began more than a week before Astaneh even arrived at ground zero - "Astaneh has almost certainly missed seeing crucial pieces before they were cut up and sent overseas." - As the New York Times

www.shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/02/engineer-sees-evidence-of-extreme.html

www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=enviromental_impact_911_attacks_1305

 

[shaman_]

Case in point: Scott claimed that that steel could not get anywhere near the atmospheric temperature in an office fire. I gave him irrefutable proof of experiments done on this exact issue which was not carried out by the American government, not related to NIST in any way shape or form, not even related to 9/11 as it was carried out years before. These experiments showed that temperatures almost matched the atmospheric temperatures of an office fire (and even exceeded when fires cooled down and steel temperatures lagged behind). What did Scott do in the face of this evidence? Did he hold his hands up and admit to his error? No. He did the exact same thing you did when I pointed out your Neil Armstrong quote was false... he stayed quiet. After he of course he claimed that these tests were spurious without explaining why.

What is the next logical course after an example like this? Call the guy out for what he really is: Dishonest, stupid or both.

I also showed Scott some tests which even came from a 9/11 conspiracy site where the steel temperature was over 900C. I expected Scott to contest the point further or even concede but instead he moved on. He then went on to make the claim, several times, that the temperature of the steel cannot get nearly that high. It is dishonest but I don’t think he realizes he’s doing it. That’s no excuse of course, but Scott has a religious-like belief that the government were behind it. He knows they did it. It would seem that no amount of evidence or reasoning can affect a faith like his. His best evidence has been taken apart and he still believes.

Perhaps that is something that can focus the discussion again. My question to Scott and the others, what is the most compelling piece of evidence for the government’s involvement?

 

[MacGyver1968]

Hs,

I think your missing the point that Kenny is making. (please correct me if I'm wrong)

We all agree that the WTC was designed with 2 groups of columns...an "inner box" of standard I-beam steel girders in the center core of the building...and an "outer box" of many "mini-columns" creating the entire exterior skin of the building.

Using any kind of thermite or explosives on the outer box of columns would have been impossible as it would have been clearly seen. So if any explosives or thermite was used...it would have had to been on the core columns in the center of the building.

Thermite doesn't work to cut vertical columns...especially against really thick I-beams. Thermite is powdered aluminum and iron oxide. Powdered aluminum is very flammable and when the aluminum is ignited it releases the oxygen in the iron oxide which makes it burn so hot...the result is a super hot pool of iron. Thermite is sometimes used to weld rail road ties together for this reason.

(interesting off topic fact: German engineers included these two ingredients, powered aluminum and iron oxide, in the doping compound of the skin of the "Hindenburg" to reflect the heat of the sun away from the hydrogen fuel cells..it was the reason the zeppelin burned like roman candle )

Thermite will cut through thinner steel in a horizonal position as the puddle of molten iron sits on top of it and melts its way through the object assisted by gravity.

If you attach thermite to a vertical thick column...the pool of molten iron just runs down the side of it..like wax down a candle...and doesn't stay hot long enough to transfer the heat to the thick girder to do anything to it.

If you tried to use conventional explosives to cut through these thick girders, the size of the explosion would be obvious, as you would have to have a dozen or so charges go off at once.

It just doesn't seem feasible.

 

[Read-Only]

This is a shocking statement, the exact quote from Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Professor of Civil Engineering is:
"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."
(as well you know! reread post 903 !)
(add 3 w's.)pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html


The cleanup process began more than a week before Astaneh even arrived at ground zero - "Astaneh has almost certainly missed seeing crucial pieces before they were cut up and sent overseas." - As the New York Times

And you are seriously stating that you cannot see the clear, absurd contidictions in the two paraghaphs above??????

He claims he "saw melting steel girders" - yet he didn't even arrive at the scene "until more than a week later!!!!!!!!!"

Wow, even a child of ten could see right through that one!!!!:bugeye:

 

[MacGyver1968]

Hey, RO...is my info correct about thermite in post #1285?

 

[MacGyver1968]

I wonder why Ganymede and now Scott have accused me of being a "govmint agent".

Notice no one thinks I'm a government agent...they know I couldn't pass the drug test. :m: :m:

 

[Headspin]

Thermite doesn't work to cut horizontal columns...especially against really thick I-beams. Thermite is powdered aluminum and iron oxide. Powdered aluminum is very flammable and when the aluminum is ignited it releases the oxygen in the iron oxide which makes it burn so hot...the result is a super hot pool of iron. Thermite is sometimes used to weld rail road ties together for this reason.

I would have thought it very clear that when i said "thermite", it was a reference to a thermite reaction, there is no need to be specific about the exact composition at this stage. We have already discussed some different forms of "thermite" which are not limited in the way you and kennyjc describe.
(3 w's).sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2031696&postcount=1042

Would you agree that if traces of explosives are found, then there is no need to speculate which columns were cut, how the explosives were detonated etc, if our intention is to determinte whether explosives were used? ie, if you find traces of gunpowder or traces of RDX it is not necessary to find out what gun was used, what columns were cut, what detonator was used. In other words- a discovery of explosives is enough to know that explosives were used, do you agree?

 

[Read-Only]

Hey, RO...is my info correct about thermite in post #1285?

Hi, Mac,

Yes - you are absolutely correct - thermite is ONLY effective in a downward direction. It would act just as you describe if it was attempted to apply it horizontally.

But it's quite handy to ignore that fact when trying to prove something from a woo-woo standpoint. Just as 'they' do with many other hard facts.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Would you agree that if traces of explosives are found, then there is no need to speculate which columns were cut, how the explosives were detonated etc, if our intention is to determinte whether explosives were used? ie, if you find traces of gunpowder or traces of RDX it is not necessary to find out what gun was used, what columns were cut, what detonator was used. In other words- a discovery of explosives is enough to know that explosives were used, do you agree?

No I would not agree...all facts must be considered in science. All aspects must be tested. It's a combination of science AND common sense.

 

[Headspin]

Hi, Mac,
Yes - you are absolutely correct - thermite is ONLY effective in a downward direction. It would act just as you describe if it was attempted to apply it horizontally.

Do you think this is true for all forms of thermite, and all application methods, or just the fun ones with flowerpots you've seen on youtube?

Would you agree that if traces of explosives are found, then there is no need to speculate which columns were cut, how the explosives were detonated etc, if our intention is to determinte whether explosives were used? ie, if you find traces of gunpowder or traces of RDX it is not necessary to find out what gun was used, what columns were cut, what detonator was used. In other words- a discovery of explosives is enough to know that explosives were used, do you agree?

 

[shaman_]

I have mentioned that Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl had some complaints about the investigation. However it is extremely unlikely that steel was recycled within a week of 9/11. Anyway the investigators had access to all the steel sitting at the scrap yards. It took many months to remove it all so to speculate that all the crucial pieces were gone in the first week is ridiculous.

This is more of the usual quote mining. Astaneh-asl investigated the twisted steel columns and believes that the fire caused them to weaken. Conspiracy theorists ignore this and cling to his comment with the word ‘melted’ in it. It does sound like he is referring to the twisted, softened girders and not molten, liquid steel.

 

[KennyJC]

Would you agree that if traces of explosives are found, then there is no need to speculate which columns were cut, how the explosives were detonated etc, if our intention is to determinte whether explosives were used?
If you find traces of gunpowder or traces of RDX it is not necessary to find out what gun was used, what columns were cut, what detonator was used. A discovery of explosives is enough to know that explosives were used, do you agree?

I certainly agree that if explosives were used to demolish the WTC, then they would have been found. But more importantly they would have been seen and heard before/during the collapse of the building itself. There were people in the clean up operation who had experience clearing up buildings in which a controlled demolition had taken place. They are adamant that they found none of the signs of a demolition, and they say if it was a demolition, they would have known.

So with no signs before, during or after collapse, we don't even need to begin to address the feasibility of setting the whole thing up in the first place.

That "someone" is Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of California at Berkeley. Let's see what he says in December 2001:

“Where there is a car accident and two people are killed, you keep the car until the trial is over. If a plane crashes, not only do you keep the plane, but you assemble all the pieces, take it to a hangar, and put it together. That’s only for 200, 300 people, when they die. In this case, you had 3,000 people dead. You had a major . . . manmade structure. My wish was that we had spent whatever it takes. . . . Get all this steel, carry it to a lot. Instead of recycling it. . . . After all, this is a crime scene and you have to figure out exactly what happened“ (CBS News, March 12, 2002)."

From this quote you could be forgiven for thinking that Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a conspiracy theorist who thinks the government was perhaps involved. However, from what I've read from what he has to say about the WTC, he is pretty clear that fire was what caused the collapse.

This is a shocking statement, the exact quote from Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Professor of Civil Engineering is:
"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."
(as well you know! reread post 903 !)
(add 3 w's.)pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

The only thing shocking here is your ignorance and dishonesty. Melting doesn't have to mean liquid steel. It can mean steel which is a considerably softened state.

This is made considerably clear by the man himself when he states that the steel was twisted and warped. He even displayed pictures of this from the steel he investigated and he estimates the temperatures involved were close to 2,000F. Needless to say that this temperature does not result in molten steel, but steel that has softened to 10% or less of its full strength. That's what he meant by "melted steel".

The cleanup process began more than a week before Astaneh even arrived at ground zero - "Astaneh has almost certainly missed seeing crucial pieces before they were cut up and sent overseas." - As the New York Times

So you are lengthening this conspiracy by adding everyone in the clean up operation as being "in on it"? Shouldn't you want to make it an elegant and simple conspriacy? That tin hat must be making your logic go a little hazy.

The bottom line is that he found steel damage consistent with high temperature fires. Despite you putting words in the mans mouth, he does not believe that there was anything other than fire that brought the towers down.

I guess you are shit out of luck if you are waiting for a real expert to be on your side.

 

[Headspin]

No I would not agree...all facts must be considered in science.

You are asking for speculation. speculation is not scientific data (facts).
"all facts must be considered in science" is not at odds with what i said.
I said "If you find traces of gunpowder or traces of RDX it is not necessary to find out what gun was used, what columns were cut, what detonator was used. In other words- a discovery of explosives is enough to know that explosives were used, do you agree?"
- You seem to be implying that i am ignoring contradictory facts, if that is the case you need to point them out.

All aspects must be tested.

The inability to provide answers to speculative questions does not invalidate the hard data (or "facts" as you said).

It's a combination of science AND common sense.

Can you elaborate.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Do you think this is true for all forms of thermite, and all application methods, or just the fun ones with flowerpots you've seen on youtube?

I believe you would be referring to "nanothermite". The only difference between nanothermite and the stuff we see on youtube, is that the aluminum particles have been ground to a diameter less than 100nm. This would GREATLY increase the amount of surface area of the combustible and make for much quicker reaction....but..(someone correct me if I'm wrong) the temperature of the reaction remains the same. You would just create a puddle of molten iron just more quickly...and possiblly heating the surrounding air quick enough to make a shock wave that would be audible.

 

[Read-Only]

Do you think this is true for all forms of thermite, and all application methods, or just the fun ones with flowerpots you've seen on youtube?

Would you agree that if traces of explosives are found, then there is no need to speculate which columns were cut, how the explosives were detonated etc, if our intention is to determinte whether explosives were used? ie, if you find traces of gunpowder or traces of RDX it is not necessary to find out what gun was used, what columns were cut, what detonator was used. In other words- a discovery of explosives is enough to know that explosives were used, do you agree?

I find that personally offensive even if it wasn't intended. I've actually used thermite on several ocassions - and there's only one type. It only works vertically.

You cannot shape it such a way as to make it work horizontally. You're simply showing your ignorance here.

And incidentally, I stay away from youtube simply because it contains SO much misinformation - just like the kind you are posting here.

 

[scott3x]

FYI Scott, Geoff is the fictitious leader of the fictitious country of East Korea

http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/East_Korea

The Lizardoids, I believe are his henchmen.

Lol . I just read the whole thing; pretty funny stuff .

Don't worry...it's all sillyness...just his term for "the people who did the inside job"

If so, Geoff has clearly not researched this well. According to this:
http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Lizardoid

they are only "used as henchmen by the Illuminati" .

 

[Read-Only]

I believe you would be referring to "nanothermite". The only difference between nanothermite and the stuff we see on youtube, is that the aluminum particles have been ground to a diameter less than 100nm. This would GREATLY increase the amount of surface area of the combustible and make for much quicker reaction....but..(someone correct me if I'm wrong) the temperature of the reaction remains the same. You would just create a puddle of molten iron just more quickly...and possiblly heating the surrounding air quick enough to make a shock wave that would be audible.

That's close enough. It actually does become a little hotter because the reaction is MUCH faster and the heat doesn't have time to dissipate. But still not hot enough to melt steel horizontally.

It's primary function in the real world is just as it's always been - joining steel railroad rails together and doing so more quickly so that they can move on to the next one. (In other words, it's a time-saver and NOT a different kind of application.)

 

[scott3x]

If you are right and I am wrong, then I am right up there with Holocaust deniers and I deserve much more than some petty insults.

See, this is the difference between you and people like me and EndLightEnd. When I believe that someone honestly believes what they're saying (as opposed to simply lying), I believe that the key is not to insult them but rather to show them the error of their ways.

Patriotic? Please... I am justified in my insults because fist of all, you are liars.

Do you have any evidence for this claim of yours? I certainly haven't seen any.

Second of all, this isn't an evolution vs. creationism debate where nobody died. We are talking about the murder of thousands of people, and I find it thoroughly distasteful the way you loonies dishonor them.

I disagree with your version of events and yet I don't find your views 'thoroughly distateful'. I simply see them as flawed and have made many attempts to get you to see those flaws.

And as usual, it is the people on the side of a belief system that object to name calling.

Kenny, are you saying that you don't have a belief system?