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

[scott3x]

wires and cabling?
how do they fire explosive bolts on spacecraft orbiting mars?
you're not suggesting they use wires and cables all the way back to earth are you?

all these speculative questions are irrelevant if high tech unreacted nanocomposite explosives were found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300WYhC6KQI&e

Very good points and very nice video.

 

[scott3x]

There were columns of twisted steel that clearly went over that temperature....

Perhaps someone should tell NIST? It seems as if they're unaware that any of the columns went over 250x... In any case, I certainly think that the temperatures went over 250C. With the help of a little explosives, ofcourse...

 

[John99]

Very good points and very nice video.

What the problem with thermite. i ask since that is in the first few seconds of the lame video.

i guess talking is better than digging ditches or washing cars.

Thermite welding is the process of igniting a mix of high energy materials, (which is also called thermite), that produce a molten metal that is poured between the working pieces of metal to form a welded joint. It was developed by Hans Goldschmidt around 1895. For non-ferrous welding, or other uses of the thermite-type reactions, see the main thermite article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite_welding

 

[scott3x]

I never said it "must" have been a mini-nuke. I simply considered it to be a possibility and linked to a site that believed it.

But the "musts" keep creeping in - it must be this, it must be that. The entire thing gets revolved around the initial assumption of conspiracy.

We clearly don't agree on what a conspiracy is, so unless you enjoy debating what a conspiracy theory is, perhaps you can refrain from using the term. I prefer 'inside job' as it is more specific. I and many others believe that explosives must have been used because of all the evidence that this is what happened. As to what explosives were used, it seems there is direct evidence that nanothermite was present in samples from the WTC site, as Headspin's recent video makes clear. He has also said that other explosives may have been used but as far as I know he has not tested for them. As to NIST.. ah NIST. The best it can do is say that they didn't look for evidence of explosives because they simply -knew- that they weren't there. Personally, I think it's more the other way around; they knew they -were- there and were paid not to look.

 

[scott3x]

Well, this is as good as an admission of my point: your central assumption is demolition. The evidence, then, revolves around your assertion, not your assertions around the evidence. This is not scientific, and I understand Headspin insists on a scientific process. Except if it suggests gasoline fires might actually melt steel girders.

There's a fair amount of evidence that nanothermite was used in the case of the WTC buildings. And if memory serves, no evidence that a gasoline fire ever melted a steel girder.

 

[John99]

Very good points and very nice video.

What the problem with thermite. i ask since that is in the first few seconds of the lame video.

i guess talking is better than digging ditches or washing cars.

Thermite welding is the process of igniting a mix of high energy materials, (which is also called thermite), that produce a molten metal that is poured between the working pieces of metal to form a welded joint. It was developed by Hans Goldschmidt around 1895. For non-ferrous welding, or other uses of the thermite-type reactions, see the main thermite article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite_welding

 

[John99]

You can probably find it in the skidmarks on steves underwear too.

 

[Headspin]

You can probably find it in the skidmarks on steves underwear too.

That's very funny
but we're not discussing thermite welding which would use the macro thermite powder with very large particles which people muck about with on youtube.
can you tell me why you think this video is lame:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300WYhC6KQI&e

 

[shaman_]

Perhaps someone should tell NIST? It seems as if they're unaware that any of the columns went over 250x... ..

Incorrect. You are attempting to use the results of some tests NIST did to maintain your religion. NIST certainly did think columns went over 250C as there were twisted girders. However in their report they mentioned steel that was tested where only three of the samples went over 250C. It is made clear that they believe that very few of the samples came from the impact area.

Conspiracy theorists ignore that part and claim this proves the steel never went over 250C and therefore a controlled demolition.... even though there were girders which clearly did. :shrug:

 

[scott3x]

So you've already tacitly admitted to the point: the steel lost strength.

Forget about steel losing strength; there is evidence that some of the steel -evaporated-. But the fires caused by the jets couldn't have even weakened the steel much, as Kevin Ryan makes clear. Explosives are another matter entirely.

 

[scott3x]

Incorrect. You are attempting to use the results of some tests NIST did to maintain your religion. NIST certainly did think columns went over 250C as there were twisted girders. However in their report they mentioned steel that was tested where only three of the samples went over 250C. It is made clear that they believe that very few of the samples came from the impact area.

Tell me, why do you suppose they didn't get a few samples from the actual impact area?

Conspiracy theorists ignore that part and claim this proves the steel never went over 250C and therefore a controlled demolition.... even though there were girders which clearly did. :shrug:

Yes, clearly girders did.. as I've mentioned, there is evidence that some steel evaporated. The main problem with all of this, from the point of view of the official story, is that the fires caused by the jets couldn't have reached such temperatures.

 

[scott3x]

And the issue that thermite burns down, not sideways?

I don't know how thermite burns, but we're talking about nanothermite. Nanothermite explodes.. Explosives tend to go off in all directions I believe.

 

[scott3x]

The collapse started at the top.

Not quite; floor 98 on WTC 1, and a high floor on WTC 2. But I never argued against that. I'm only saying that there was evidence that explosives went off in the basements of the WTC twin towers before the collapse.

 

[scott3x]

No. Scott, the word "conspiracy" is a charged one, and it has a single meaning in the mind of the proliteriat with respect to this case: inside job. So, no: I cannot in good faith permit this very politicized assertion, whatever the actual meaning. I would suggest that you refrain from the association, as it has an implicit bias in recognition.

As long as you don't mention conspiracy, I won't mention that the government's 'official story' is also a conspiracy. I agree with that you say above to some extent (though I'm not sure I'd consider myself to be a 'proletariat'). But it doesn't take away from the fact that the official story, by wikipedia's definition (the first entry to come up when you google 'conspiracy theory') is also a conspiracy theory.

Perhaps an excerpt from an article from Kevin Ryan will further help elucidate my point...

*************************************
When Matthew Rothschild, editor of the online magazine The Progressive, wrote an article called “Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already”, we all knew he was not talking about the conspiracy theory that the US government sells us to justify the expanding 9/11 Wars.[1] To the contrary, in writing that article Mr. Rothschild was selling that same theory himself. What he actually meant was that people should not question the US government’s story of terror because credentialed experts have been found to support it. But the fact is that the experts found to support the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 are predominantly those who profit from doing so. That’s not to say that all of these people were “part of the conspiracy”. But they are, whether consciously or not, a part of the cover-up...
*************************************
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5071

Your unfortunate quote above illustrates your own actual impressions of the word "conspiracy" in this matter and, if I were less charitable, I would consider this as evidence of deliberate duplicity.

How do you think what I've said could be considered deceitful?

Steven Jones is not my 'Messiah'. I simply recognize good evidence when I see it (and I've seen quite a bit of his evidence by now). I also recognize that you have some relatively good debating skills and this is why we've been going at it for some time. However, I believe that the evidence in my favour is strong and it's just a matter of time before you realize this...

I regret to inform you that it is not. I have seen nothing - not a single piece of information - that I could in all conscience call "evidence" of your hypothesis.

Alright. But just because you don't recognize it as evidence doesn't mean it isn't.

I further regret to inform you that I have seen distortion, avoidance, word play, speculation, begging of the question, rotation of facts around the central hypothesis and refusal of acknowledgement.

Speaking of refusal of acknowledgement, there's a floor 98 with your name on it . I have acknowledged that you are correct on some points.

I would not go so far as deception, although I think your avowals on the use of the word conspiracy come close. Mr. Ryan unfortunately has made the connection between "conspiracy" and "cover-up" for you quite unequivocally.

Mr. Ryan simply believes that the official story and alternative stories can both be called conspiracy theories, as do I. And frankly, given Wikipedia's definition of the term 'conspiracy theory', I think that just about anyone could come to this conclusion. Your best point is that a lot of people have come to view 9/11 conspiracy theories as ones that believe that 9/11 was an inside job. But while I can recognize this, you must also recognize that the official story can be seen as just one more conspiracy theory.

 

[scott3x]

I agree that some in the truth movement may be a little too quick to believe that someone who disagrees with them is in on the 9/11 deception.

Heavens alive! You do? I shall write this in my dream diary.

Laugh

However, the more reasoned truthers will be cautious to come to such conclusions and can certainly backtrack on them if they find that the evidence doesn't support their conclusions. In your particular case I never suspected you to be a government disinformation agent. I can't say the same in Kenny's case, but I backtracked after further analyzing his writings.

You do realize this isn't helping your case? "Well...maaaaybe you're not a government agent. But you could be." Scott, seek help. I really think you should.

In life, I think it's best to deal more with the probable rather then the possible. So: I think it's improbable that you and Kenny are government agents. But I won't rule it out because I don't feel I have enough data to do so. I can thus say that I believe you and Kenny are what you say you are. You may likewise think that I am, as you say, duplicitous. But unless you have evidence of such it's not really productive to go saying so...

 

[GeoffP]

We clearly don't agree on what a conspiracy is, so unless you enjoy debating what a conspiracy theory is, perhaps you can refrain from using the term.

I regret to say that I cannot do so. I will continue to use the term as conventionally applied, and as obliquely admitted to by you and Kevin Ryan.

I and many others believe that explosives must have been used because of all the evidence that this is what happened.

He has also said that other explosives may have been used but as far as I know he has not tested for them.

Leprechauns may also have been used, but he has not tested for them.

Personally, I think it's more the other way around; they knew they -were- there and were paid not to look.

Well there's as much evidence of that as any of the rest of it, I suppose.

There's a fair amount of evidence that nanothermite was used in the case of the WTC buildings.

There is actually no such evidence.

And if memory serves, no evidence that a gasoline fire ever melted a steel girder.

Then your memory does not serve, I regret to say.

Forget about steel losing strength; there is evidence that some of the steel -evaporated-. But the fires caused by the jets couldn't have even weakened the steel much

What proof do you have of this?

I don't know how thermite burns, but we're talking about nanothermite. Nanothermite explodes.. Explosives tend to go off in all directions I believe.

Unfortunately, you have tailored your new theory to fit your initial supposition.

How do you think what I've said could be considered deceitful?

Because you first attempt to pretend that you mean any conspiracy, including that of 19 islamic terrorists, but then cite Kevin Ryan in order to explain that you really mean "inside job". It's duplicitous. If you don't agree, explain how it isn't.

Alright. But just because you don't recognize it as evidence doesn't mean it isn't.

Rather, I recognize its value, which is marginal at best.

Speaking of refusal of acknowledgement, there's a floor 98 with your name on it . I have acknowledged that you are correct on some points.

I laugh. Which are these?

Mr. Ryan simply believes that the official story and alternative stories can both be called conspiracy theories, as do I.

No. He uses it in context of "coverup"; this is duplicitous.

Now will you admit that steel weakens at high temperatures? Are you able at this point to admit that Hassan Astaneh agrees that the steel lost structural strength from fire?

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, numerous structural engineers and experts spoke to the media, describing what they thought caused the towers to collapse. Hassan Astaneh, a structural engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley, explained that the high temperatures in the fires weakened the steel beams and columns, causing them to become "soft and mushy", and eventually they were unable to structure above. Astaneh also suggested that the fireproofing became dislodged during the initial aircraft impacts. He also explained that once the initial structural failure occurred, then progressive collapse of the entire structure was inevitable.[31] Cesar Pelli, who designed the Petronas Towers in Malaysia and the World Financial Center in New York, remarked that, "no building is prepared for this kind of stress".[32]

...

As in the theory which is currently accepted, the fires were taken to be the key to the collapses. Thomas Eagar, an MIT materials professor, had described the fires as "the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse".[43] This is because the fires were originally said to have "melted" the floors and columns. As Eagar said, "The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel." Jet fuel is essentially kerosene and would have served mainly to ignite very large, but not unusually hot, hydrocarbon fires. This led Eagar, FEMA and others to focus on what appeared to be the weakest point of the structures, namely, the points at which the floors were attached to the building frame. Once these connections failed, the pancake collapse could initiate.[45][46] The NIST report, however, would ultimately vindicate the floor connections; indeed, the collapse mechanism depends on the strength of these connections as the floors pulled the outer walls in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Collapse_of_the_South_Tower

Have you seen SLC yet? Can explosions cause a tower to lean?

Best regards,

Geoff

 

[GeoffP]

In life, I think it's best to deal more with the probable rather then the possible. So: I think it's improbable that you and Kenny are government agents. But I won't rule it out because I don't feel I have enough data to do so. I can thus say that I believe you and Kenny are what you say you are. You may likewise think that I am, as you say, duplicitous. But unless you have evidence of such it's not really productive to go saying so...

Well, it is, kind of. I could say that I'm "not sure" whether or not you're some kind of a plant from Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, but I don't even attempt such an allusion, because it isn't justified or relevant. By even raising it, you do the entire argument a disservice, and apply an unfair slant to the discussion.

Best regards,

Geoff

 

[shaman_]

Not quite; floor 98 on WTC 1, and a high floor on WTC 2. But I never argued against that. I'm only saying that there was evidence that explosives went off in the basements of the WTC twin towers before the collapse.

Your evidence consists of distorting witness testimony while conveniently ignoring things such as the smell of kerosene and the falling lifts.

But you still refuse to see is just how stupid the bombs in the basement theory is when the collapse started at the top. Even if, for the sake of argument, we assume that you actually had something which could be considered evidence you still have the problem that whenever bombs go off in buildings they tend to have some sort of effect. These imaginary bombs clearly didn’t do anything as the collapse started at the top.

Why would you put a bomb on the bottom floor when you are trying to hide the massive super conspiracy where planes are smashing into buildings? It is just a very stupid theory with no credible evidence whatsoever.

 

[shaman_]

Forget about steel losing strength; there is evidence that some of the steel -evaporated-.

The steel evaporated? Show me this evidence.

But the fires caused by the jets couldn't have even weakened the steel much,

You have been spoonfed evidence that completely invalidates this claim. Do I need to go through it again?

Do explosions explain softened steel?

 

[Headspin]

And if memory serves, no evidence that a gasoline fire ever melted a steel girder. ”

Then your memory does not serve, I regret to say.

Scott's memory does serve him. no evidence has been presented that shows gasoline fires can melt steel girders. Astaneh specifically says there was no melting of girders at the bridge event.

also this:
"The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel." Jet fuel is essentially kerosene and would have served mainly to ignite very large, but not unusually hot, hydrocarbon fires

kerosene burns hotter than gasoline, infering gasoline cannot melt steel.
http://www.jwiwood.com/faq/conversion.html