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

[MacGyver1968]

Dude...the load is not just isolated to that floor...none of that area had any support. The area that collapsed first was just the weakest link in the chain.

 

[moementum7]

Inside job!
Just stirring the pot

 

[GeoffP]

Can you cite a source that, as you put it, would believe that it made "all the difference in the world" if the collapse took 5 seconds longer then they thought?

No need. The constant refrain of "free fall!" still rings in my ears.

The buildings shouldn't have collapsed at all if all the buildings suffered were airliner collisions and their relatively insignificant fires (insignificant to the building structures, not to the people who were exposed to them).

Of course, those fires weren't insignificant, and neither was the kind of damage the planes inflicted.

Highly unlikely from what I've heard. Even if it magically took off all the fire insulation it came across, there is significant evidence that it would have made little difference.

There simply isn't, Scott: this is false.

**************************************************
Floor 98 was not in the centre of the impact area, but was struck by a portion of the aircraft. The fuselage and the engines hit floors 95 and 96, whereas floor 98 was only hit by the outer section of the plane’s starboard wing. Five of the perimeter columns on floor 98 were severed. If 50% of the building’s gravity load is assumed to be carried by the columns in the building's core and 50% by the 236 perimeter columns, the five severed perimeter columns would have degraded floor 98’s ability to bear the gravity load it supported by slightly more than 1%.[/i]
**************************************************

And how much damage did the fires do in terms of carrying strength of the steel? This is a salient point that no 9/11 Troofer, to my knowledge, has ever tried to meaningfully address.

Fine, it's supposition. But it sounds like a reasonable one.

To you.

This is what I said exactly
"1- You seem to be working for the government. As such, I believe you may have an impulse, be it unconscious or conscious or some mix of the 2, to want to see all of it in a good light."

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2043816&postcount=1260

Thankyou; my point is handily illustrated. Why in particular would any individual government worker have any reason to so paint events?

Very funny .

Well, there we are. One is free to cast about aspersions. Who am I likely to be working for? The Lizardoids! You claim this was some tenuous association, but the subtle meaning of your argument persists.

I wish . I'm unemployed again, but tomorrow I'm going up to my mother's farm and hopefully manage to do some work up there.

Then I wish you the best of luck and enjoyment of the weather.

Or atleast that's what you believe. Can you cite where Steven Jones said that nano-thermite was the only demolition tool used? I'm certain I can find a quote where he says otherwise.

By all means, if you like. But that's not the point: the point is that the story continually evolves and changes. First nanothermite is good enough for the job - and I don't recall you mentioning other explosives, Scott, prior to this last round of posts - and then other explosives must have been involved. Or it must have been a mini-nuke. Later, it will be that it must have been an orbital lazer. It must have been an FAE. It must have been aliens. it must have been the owners, or the janitors, or the Jews.

...because it must have been a conspiracy.

Not so? Because these are assumptions that keep being laid about; the new Disciples preaching from the book of Circulus in Probando.

If the theories I support (I certainly am in good company in supporting them) were so absurd, you would have been to knock them out long ago.

And I have done. But you don't acknowledge the hits, so what is there to say?

If you don't want to review the links I send you, so be it. I have only once asked you to review a movie, and only a few minutes worth of it, since I have only done this with your SLC.

And so I have done. But you refuse - still, I assume - to investigate evidence that damns your hypothesis too strongly. Gasoline fires melting steel, the impossibility of horizontal steel cutting with thermite, the simple issue of the temperature in the Towers and the point at which steel loses 50% of its strength, or the entire film of Screw Loose Change - none of these meet your interest because they undermine too well what it is you're trying to do.

I will repost the link to SLC a final time. I hope that you will find it of interest.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

I also attach a link to the refutation of "9/11 Mysteries"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

Best regards,

Geoff

 

[GeoffP]

Oh, and from David Ray Griffin himself - having been challenged on his book's Amazon page by the guys at http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ - an admission that his work may have suffered from not being correct:

My point, I thought I made clear, was that although I had not been "intentionally misleading," I had been careless. (I had quoted those statements from secondary sources---three of them from Thierry Meyssan's "Pentagate"---without looking them up for myself to read them in context. Also, when I wrote the passage 12 pages later about people "claiming to have seen a missile or small military plane," I failed to realize that the people I had quoted did not specifically claim to have "seen" such a thing but had merely said they thought---as I then falsely believed---that it was either a missile or a small plane.

It's not too late, Scott.

Geoff

 

[MacGyver1968]

Inside job!
Just stirring the pot

Thanks, M..

But this shore ain't no pot that needs a stirrin'....

 

[shaman_]

Thinking about it, I believe NIST is saying that the jetliners did little harm to the building.

No. Jet liners severed many of the supports, damaged others and knocked the fireproofing off the steel. They did more than 'little harm'.

Clearly they think otherwise of the ensuing fire, where they imagine more heat then their own models show, ignore steel conduction properties and possibly mistake refracted light for bowing columns.

Refracting light? From photos on different angles. Come on.

My apologies. In the past, some had assumed that the jets were fully loaded and I assumed that 10,000 was the fully loaded mark.

Not sure if I was mistaken, but FEMA and NIST definitely believe so.

You're referring to the (older) FEMA estimate (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm)

NIST, however, brings that estimate down to 20% of the total, or 2000 gallons.
(http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/VisualizationAidsWTCTowers.pdf , page 3).

Let's assume that NIST's estimate of only 20% being used up in the initial fireball is correct; alternate theory believers seem to have little problem with accepting this assumption. Their problem is with their imagined heat. 9/11 Research puts it this way:
*************************************************
Imagined Heat

The Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.

Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140)

The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That's consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF). How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF).
*************************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#exaggeration

I don't know, or trust, where you got that from but it is irrelevant when we have Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl looking at twisted steel estimating that it must have reached temperatures near 1000C and we have had NIST estimates for years that there were pockets around 1000C.

Once again, I gave you a link to a bridge that collapsed from the fire from a crashed gas tanker. I gave you a link to a toilet paper factory where the steel supports buckled during a fire.
Again you mention a test where the steel didn't go over a certain temperature but for the fifth time, that is irrelevant when there is no mention of the temp of the atmosphere. You have been given several tests where the steel temperature reached near 1000. You ignored these because they are damaging to your religion.

 

[KennyJC]

I do my research to. In the case of what happened on the WTC buildings itself, for example:
*************************************************
The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That's consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF). How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF).[/i]
*************************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#exaggeration

And I have shown you tests were steel in office fires reached over 1000 degrees within 40 minutes (I forget if it was C or F) which was very close to the atmospheric temperature of the fires.

So once again you are going to have to admit that you are either mistaken, or you are lying.

Mini nukes is the claim.

What is a "mini nuke"? I imagine that even a low yield nuclear weapon would be catastrophic. Once again you are making claims before demonstrating feasibility.

Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko on WTC #7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T3_mmGvfQQ

Well I was anticipating you bringing up the name of one or two demolition experts. However, I'm talking about consensus. Consensus is important. If 99% of civil engineers, and demolition experts at the top of their field do not have suspicions about 9/11, then you are shit out of luck.

The guy in the above video agrees with the "official story" about WTC 1 & 2, but for some reason he seems to think WTC7 was demolished. Stranger still, he didn't even know this building was from 9/11 as he watched it collapse.

Also:
**************************************************
Collapse of the twin towers resembled those of controlled implosions...

Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology says the collapse of the twin towers resembled those of controlled implosions used in planned demolition.
"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.
A demolition expert, Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech. Romero told the Albequerque Journal that he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. The detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.
**************************************************
http://911exposed.org/WTC1.htm

Romero later retracts his story. 9/11 Research comments on his retraction:
**************************************************
PM [Popular Mechanics] quotes Romero denying that his retraction was bought:
"Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

PM fails to mention that Van Romero was named chairman of the Domestic Preparedness Consortium in January 2001, that his Institute received $15 million for an anti-terrorism program in 2002, or that Influence Magazine tapped him as one of six top lobbyists in 2003, having secured $56 million for New Mexico Tech. [19] [20] [21] [22]
**************************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html

The bottom line is that he retracted his statement. You have no proof whatsoever that he was threatened or paid off by any of these fictional people who are in on it.

The video link doesn't work, but the excerpt is still quite informative:
**********************************
Demolition Experts Speak out against 9/11 cover up

The video is nearly 2 hours long, but the details start early. Physicists,engineers,fire and demolition experts, explain how some of the official versions contradict the laws of Physics. The Third WTC building WTC 7 is not mentioned much. 7 hours after the first two towers collapsed, this building 48 stories high collapsed in 6.8 seconds. an apple dropped from that height takes 6. It was reinforced, and there was insufficient damage to cause such a collapse...
**********************************
http://www.clipmarks.com/clipmark/E260C5B3-FA9A-41A6-BF4C-784ADC8741C8/


People with demolition expertise questioning 9/11:

http://demolitionexpertsquestion911.blogspot.com/

I am not impressed. Every demolition expert in the world (apart from that Dutch guy it seems) watched those towers come down just like you and me, and all you can do is find a handful of them that agree with you.

 

[shaman_]

Apparently, he had to examine 1,500 tons of steel each day. How meticulous of an investigation can you do when you have to do it so fast?

Ah the ducking and weaving done by the conspiracy theorists. Firstly the claim is made the the steel was not investigated and was spirited away. Then the claim is that experts like Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl missed all the critical pieces because they were all gone.

When pointed out that it's not quite the case the claim then becomes that he had so much steel to analyze that he couldn't do it properly.

 

[shaman_]

"Thermate, C4, Nukes Prove 911 Was An Inside Job":

http://www.rense.com/general80/dprah.htm

This last link is something I have heard before (the mini nukes thing) but that I hadn't seriously considered. I'm still not sure, but the possibility frightens me. Nukes are radioactive. This might help explain what has happened to some of the first responders and firemen..

Nukes? Come on Scott, really?

I shouldn't be surprised as you were convinced by the missile thing.

 

[Headspin]

Gasoline fires melting steel

gasoline fires do not melt steel. if that were the case your engine would melt and there would be no point to building expensive blast furnaces that require raw oxygen.

I thought this was a science related board, can you show scientific argument for your claim that gasoline melts steel?

 

[Read-Only]

gasoline fires do not melt steel. if that were the case your engine would melt and there would be no point to building expensive blast furnaces that require raw oxygen.

I thought this was a science related board, can you show scientific argument for your claim that gasoline melts steel?

<sigh> This tired, old song again...:bugeye:

It didn't have to melt the steel, just weaken it. Which it did.

 

[Headspin]

Gasoline fires melting steel

gasoline fires do not melt steel. if that were the case your engine would melt and there would be no point to building expensive blast furnaces that require raw oxygen.

I thought this was a science related board, can you show scientific argument for your claim that gasoline melts steel?

<sigh> This tired, old song again...:bugeye:

It didn't have to melt the steel, just weaken it. Which it did.

The necessity of the steel having to melt or not is not the issue being discussed.

The fact that you use this tired old strawman misdirection technique indicates you want to avoid the issue at hand, or perhaps you completely misunderstand the issue? It seems you are happy to accept the statement by Geoff that "gasoline fires melt steel" without challenge, so perhaps you could show using scientific argument whether the statement is true or false, or is your forte limited to word sleights?

 

[GeoffP]

gasoline fires do not melt steel. if that were the case your engine would melt and there would be no point to building expensive blast furnaces that require raw oxygen.

I thought this was a science related board, can you show scientific argument for your claim that gasoline melts steel?

What's the matter now? I agree that the weakening of the steel is a more conservative and justifiable position, of course, and frankly it is all that is required to refute your faith in some 9/11 conspiracy or other, for which reason it is roundly avoided by Troofers.

But what am I to make of the evidence that uncontrolled gasoline fires (not in an engine, which is a different case, obviously) melt steel?

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

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

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL

:shrug:

By the by, are you completely sure that the heat of an engine couldn't melt the pistons, say, or even the block in certain circumstances? Maybe if some company specified something or other about piston melting in a warranty, perhaps.

http://remanufactured.com/Shortblock_engine_and_cylinder_head_warranties.htm

 

[GeoffP]

The fact that you use this tired old strawman misdirection technique indicates you want to avoid the issue at hand, or perhaps you completely misunderstand the issue? It seems you are happy to accept the statement by Geoff that "gasoline fires melt steel" without challenge, so perhaps you could show using scientific argument whether the statement is true or false, or is your forte limited to word sleights?

Apparently it isn't. I fail to see how one could call this strawman. Do you mean in that it detracts from your preconclusions?

Now that you have been challenged, could you do me and the masses of expectant Troofers standing behind you the favour of addressing this point? It would be a most welcome change.

Best regards,

Geoff

 

[Read-Only]

The necessity of the steel having to melt or not is not the issue being discussed.

The fact that you use this tired old strawman misdirection technique indicates you want to avoid the issue at hand, or perhaps you completely misunderstand the issue? It seems you are happy to accept the statement by Geoff that "gasoline fires melt steel" without challenge, so perhaps you could show using scientific argument whether the statement is true or false, or is your forte limited to word sleights?

I'm not limited at all. But the REAL truth is that all of you 9/11 conspiracy nuts aren't limited by physics OR facts - you are quick to accept anything at all that you believe will support your claims. (Thermite burning horizontally or at an angle, mini-nukes that leave no radiation behind, etc.)

 

[Headspin]

those are journalistic accounts. The tarmac asphalt would have melted no doubt, but where is the evidence for the steel melting?

 

[scott3x]

Dude...the load is not just isolated to that floor...none of that area had any support. The area that collapsed first was just the weakest link in the chain.

What I'm trying to get across to you is that the floor that collapsed was perhaps the -strongest- link in the weakened chain. The 95th and 96th floors were much more heavily damaged. Therefore, if any of the floors should have collapsed first, it should have been one of those 2. Ofcourse, not even those floors should have collapsed, but since I haven't persuaded you guys of that yet, I can atleast try to persuade you guys that floor 98 definitely shouldn't have been the first floor to collapse if the cause was the airliner collision and ensuing fires alone.

 

[Headspin]

He actually looked over 40,000 tons of scrap.

That's about 10% of the steel, so he didn't even look at 90% of the steel.

 

[Headspin]

"ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here <the bridge>, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees (Fahrenheit). And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders <at the bridge>.
I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

 

[Read-Only]

That's about 10% of the steel, so he didn't even look at 90% of the steel.

Ahem! You've yet to explain how he could have seen steel melting when he didn't even arrive at the scene until more than a week later.:bugeye: