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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by scott3x
Just a -slight- exageration there (62nd time, laugh :p).

I believe I remember that story as well as the alternate story explanation for it. If memory serves, the building that collapsed was more like a warehouse; it certainly wasn't nearly as strong as a steel -framed- building.

It was a steel framed building. It didn’t have 110 floors to hold up either.

From what I remember reading somewhere, it was made clear that the towers were built in a much stronger way; stronger then the Windsor tower in Madrid, and most of its structure remained intact, despite the raging fires it experienced.


The Madrid tower had a concrete core the WTC didn’t.

You're right; the WTC had -steel- core columns. Guess which one is stronger?


Amusingly the steel supports collapsed due to the fire but the concrete held the building up, which only supports the official theory.

Only some of the the outer perimeter collapsed. I have also heard that there was evidence that the fire was an arson; and if that was the case, what was used in that arson is anyone's guess...
 
Originally Posted by scott3x
Yes, but the bridge didn't have any stories below it; it fell through air alone before being stopped by the road below it.

What are you talking about?

Putting aside for a moment that a bridge is not the same thing as a WTC floor, what I'm talking about is that the road below it stopped it from falling further, just as the floors below the plane crash would have stopped any floor above it falling into it.
 
It’s annoying that you post the same things over and over as if they have never been discussed before. It’s as if you think you can overwhelm me with links and somehow that will convince me that I’m wrong. Its frustrating and it makes you seem unreasonable or forgetful.


However, thanks to the help of an alternate theory website's admin from letsrollforums.com, I now have a video of the molten metal that had landed on the ground, as well as a firetruck passing through it. The results are drastic, as can be seen.
***************************************

Here's the video with the flowing molten metal; Just found it. And I highly doubt this is a website of Christopher's as there is no mention of the concrete core, which seems to be his main area of interest. I have found many extremely excellent pieces of evidence and proof at this website, and I would recommend the website to people, with a weak disclaimer, about his humorous and comical approach to 911. Yet, this appears to be the websites main and only real drawback.

The part of the video which shows this is toward the end of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-0ZIrAfCI0
***************************************
http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=160519&postcount=2
What? Where is the molten metal in that video? I saw a firetruck at about 5:00.


It has been suggested that the fact that a lot of it was buried helped it to keep its heat.
I will repeat, megasuperultrathermite does not burn slowly for weeks. Even if it did the amount required to do so would be ridiculous and certainly noticed. Saying ‘oh but it was buried’ doesn’t solve that problem. If there were hot spots for weeks it has no relevence on the superultrawonderthermite theory.

NIST hasn't speculated on how it might have preserved its extremely hot temperature, ofcourse, since it denies that anything other then molten aluminum could have been present, a theory that has clearly been discredited.
Only if you are a gullible conspiracy theorist with an tendency to avoid reason or facts.


There's plenty of evidence not only for explosives but for a controlled demolition. From Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
*******************************************
explo2.jpg


...the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions: (and some non-standard characteristics)
1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions and flashes of light witnessed near the beginning of the "collapse" by over 100 first responders
3. "Squibs", or focused explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos
4. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
6. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
7. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
8. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint
9. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
10. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 4 - 20 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
11. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure
12. Tons of molten metal found by FDNY and numerous other experts under all 3 high-rises
13. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
14. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
15. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings
*******************************************
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Rife with errors. Do I really need to go through them again?



Access is not the same thing as being able to analyze it all. He had to go through 1,500 tons of steel a -day-. He makes it clear he was unhappy with the amount of time he was given to examine the evidence as well as some other things in a statement before the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives:
********************************************
I wish I had more time to inspect steel structure and save more pieces before the steel was recycled. However, given the fact that other teams such as NIST, SEAONY and FEMA-BPAT have also done inspection and have collected the perishable data, it seems to me that collectively we may have been able to collect sufficient data. The main impediments to my work were and still are:

1. Not having a copy of the engineering drawings and design and construction documents.
2. Not having copies of the photographs and videotapes that various agencies might have taken during and immediately after the collapse.

Such data has already been made available to ASCE Building Performance Assessment Team. If those are also available to us, we will be able to proceed further with our research.

********************************************

Later on, The Committee asks the following questions:
********************************************
Has the confidential nature of the FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team investigation made it more difficult to gain access to materials that might be useful, such as private videotapes?
********************************************

His response should be a concern to anyone interested in what happened on 9/11:
********************************************
I have not been provided with the information made available to the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team. This includes, videotapes and photographs taken on 9/11 and the following days and copies of the engineering drawings. At this time, having the videotapes, photographs and copies of the drawings not only is useful, but also is essential in enabling us to conduct any analysis of the collapse and to formulate conclusions from our effort.
********************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/astaneh-wtc.htm
I have mentioned several times that he had objections. However you are still being misleading because he made it extremely clear that he considered the conspiracy theories to be nonsense and believes that the fires caused the steel to weaken which led to the collapse.




The claim of molten metal has been made by many people:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
We’ve been through that one a few times. You are desperately clinging to testimony like “A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." . If you stopped and actually thought for a second you would see the problem with that sentence. If they are talking about beams then they are not talking about molten metal are they? People clearly see glowing metal and often call it molten metal. You have no credible evidence for molten steel.


The
As to the evaporated steel, I'm simply repeating what was reported in the New York Times:
***************************************
Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks....

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

***************************************
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E3DE143DF93AA15752C1A9679C8B63
Yeh thanks I’ve seen the quote. Keep spamming…


Once again, while it is a strange comment there is no other evidence whatsoever to support it. His own team reported no temperatures in that range. Conspiracy theorists are pretty keen to cling onto one testimony, discard all the evidence they don’t like, avoid difficult questions and then make claims like ‘the official story is full of holes’ and 'NIST are dishonest'.
 
What part of that convinces you? He is merely asserting, with a pathetic ramble involving cartoons, that a steel building cannot collapse. The vast majority of structural engineers disagree with him.

Prove it. While you're attempting to do this, I'd like to point out there are 520 architects and engineers who have serious doubts or openly disagree with the official story here:
http://www.ae911truth.org/


The critical failure which caused the collapse have happened before.

Where? In the Oklahoma bombing?


Originally Posted by scott3x
I never said nano thermites were used before 9/11 to demolish something, only that its -capabilities- were proven.

It’s capabilities for demolishing a building have not been proven.

Even if this were so, it's all the more reason to do more research on the subject as Steven Jones has asked for; as in, government funded research.


What has been proven is how fire can weaken steel causing structures to collapse.

How about we look at a simple experiment to see how much fires would weaken the steel:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/10/can-hydrocarbon-fires-weaken-steel.html
 
Prove it.
Do you actually believe that the vast majority of structural engineers are behind crackpot Jones? Yes or No?


Why don’t you take into account the twenty something papers in peer reviewed engineering journals which I posted a link to. I have no doubt you have erased them from your mind as they all supported the official story. What do the conspiracy theorists have? An environmental magazine and an unknown engineering journal which required only a payment for submission. Clearly you don’t have the vast majority of structural engineers behind the conspiracy theory but (1) You are deluded and believe this is so or (2) because no one has bothered to get a list together of the majority of structural engineers you think you have a point, which makes you deluded or childish I’m not sure which.

Where? In the Oklahoma bombing?
You have been shown cases where the steel has weakened due to fire. One was a toilet paper factory! You will of course conveniently ignore these.



Even if this were so, it's all the more reason to do more research on the subject as Steven Jones has asked for; as in, government funded research.
Yes but the conspiracy theorists just know that it must have been used even before it has been shown to be a possibility.



How about we look at a simple experiment to see how much fires would weaken the steel:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/10/can-hydrocarbon-fires-weaken-steel.html

:roflmao:

There it is all the proof you need! The thread can be ended !

Come on Scott you must see how meaningless that demonstration is.
 
scott3x said:
You're right; the WTC had -steel- core columns. Guess which one is stronger?

Did you just say that? Did you?

Do you realize that concrete is far more fire resistent than steel?

Even if this were so, it's all the more reason to do more research on the subject as Steven Jones has asked for; as in, government funded research.

Is there a difference between Kent Hovind and Steven Jones? Well let's see.. They both speak in pseudoscience and preach to a choir of like-minded folk who don't know anything about science. They do not have the balls to stand up in front of a crowd of informed people who could point out their flaws. They don't make any attempt whatsoever to have their work peer-reviewed like a real scientist would have to do. They both have a dishonest agenda. And so on...
 
Welcome to the discussion voyager. Be prepared to repeat yourself many times when discussing with Scott.
i'm not going to repeat myself for anybody.
i've presented my evidence and scott has failed to address it, much less disprove it.

i've asked scott to name the similarities between the collapse of the WTC towers and a controlled demolition and he has failed to do so.
this implies to me that he can't find any.
 
The kind of people that would do it as a conspiracy like the Us government aren't total morons. They know that jet fuel will burn at 8,000+ degrees and they won't bother with explosives because they simply are not necessary. We are talking about the greatest special forces and explosives units in the world. Every single one of them would say explosives would be too obvious and totally unessecary. We are talking about explosive genius's. There would have been no bombs in the building. More than likely they would've been on the plane because any strange signatures afterwards could be explained by the complete annihalation of any evidence.

What all people assume is that the kind of techniques used would be as crud as a car bomb. These explosives engineers that would do it would have done something ingenious. just to show how good they are here's an example. An Israeli explosives team of around the same skill level made a cell phone equivalent to the one used by that of an enemy terrrorist leader. On a spec ops mission they replaced the leaders cell phone with that one. When the right number was dialed there was a shaped charge that blasted his head apart.
 
Last edited:
i'm not going to repeat myself for anybody.
i've presented my evidence and scott has failed to address it, much less disprove it.

i've asked scott to name the similarities between the collapse of the WTC towers and a controlled demolition and he has failed to do so.
this implies to me that he can't find any.


Welcome to the discussion V,

I thank you for you response to my question in the "Transitor Theory" thread. You seem to be pretty knowledgable. We can always use more of those people. :)

As for this thread...it's just an exercise in futility. :)
 
Afraid so.

As I said above: the whole thing is about faith. Troofers routinely use statements like "I believe" because that's the truth - they believe. It really wouldn't matter what was debunked. If I proved that evolution was true to Pat Robertson, would he stop believing in God? Of course not. So it's not a scientific issue. It's not about reasonability, or logic, or process. It's about - as even the comments from Scott, inarguably one of the more lukewarm and more reasonable Troofers - belief in something.

It's unfortunate that it's got to this point. If there'd been something else that could have tickled the old faith button in the human cerebellum, it would probably have been a lot better for society.

Geoff
 
Structural engineers are a somewhat rare breed,
Structural engineers who support the troothers certainly are.

but they are certainly not uniform in their praise of the official story; glancing briefly a while ago at the list of 520 architects and engineers in the "Architects and Engineers" on the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" page, I saw 1 structural engineer in their ranks.
1? Your kidding they must have more than 1.

I can’t even get into the list of members on their site.

But I think you yourself are the one who's getting a bit dazzled here. You don't need to be a structural engineer in order to realize that the official WTC collapse theory is full of holes.
Just gullible.

I believe that a firm grasp of physics will do just fine.
Something you do not appear to have. The comment regarding concrete and steel was a reminder of that.

Even if you only took a high school course in physics (I raise my hand), I think that with a little work and an open mind, you can see that many if not all of the 9/11 official theories collapse under scrutiny.




My point is this is a guy who has been frequently peer reviewed, and has even been peer reviewed on such a sensitive subject such as the events that took place on 9/11.
No you still don’t get it. If the official story is full of holes and there are all these appropriately qualified people who agree then where are all the peer reviewed documents in relevant journals? Pointing to his articles on cold fusion just shows you don’t comprehend what is going on.

If he said that it was peer reviewed, I'll take his word for it over yours. This is a guy who has been peer reviewed in such noteworthy scientific magazines as Scientific American and Nature. Have -you- ever been published in a peer reviewed publication like that?
That is a pathetic attempt to keep up with the argument. I am not releasing documents on the internet (outside the recognised process) like Jones is.

If you are mesmerised by peer reviewed papers then you must have been impressed by the many peer reviewed papers written by structural engineers which support the theory. No? Didn’t read them? No of course you didn’t. You are interested in the conspiracy theory not the truth.


Aside from that video and another I have shown (which makes it clear that it was indeed a molten metal other then aluminum), there's plenty and I've already shown a fair amount of it. Here's a good link on the subject:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
Yes uncorroborated reports of glowing metal…..




I did a little research regarding Gene Corley. Here's a few things I found:
The authors of the Murrah Building report concerning the Oklahoma bombing are the same individuals who comprised the original ASCE team:
* Dr W. Gene Corley
* Charles Thornton
* Paul Mlaker
* Mete Sozen


The link to that info is here: http://911research.wtc7.net/non911/oklahoma/index.html

Kevin Ryan says of this team:
"Several of these individuals have strong connections to industries that benefited from the attack, such as armaments makers and oil and gas producers."
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html

Kevin Ryan speaks a bit more in his article 'The Peculiar WTC "Experts"':
*************************************
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. And that, of course, is the greater crime.

The Bush Administration employed a number of such credentialed experts to give us multiple explanations for the unprecedented destruction of three tall steel-framed buildings at the World Trade Center (WTC). Unfortunately, all of those explanations have proven to be false, and this fact reminds us that academic credentials don’t necessarily make a person more capable, or more likely, to tell the truth.

Exactly how they could find so many experts on the fire-induced collapse of tall buildings is not immediately clear, considering such an event had never happened before. But it did help that the questions were quickly framed as being solely matters of structural engineering, a sub-field of civil engineering, because structural engineers cannot find work without continual government approvals. A Chemistry laboratory manager like myself can work without permits or licenses, but people can’t just go out and build a bridge or a tall building on their own. The extensive paperwork necessary to complete civil engineering projects is obtained by working closely with, and staying on good terms with, local and national authorities. That fact may not be enough to ensure vocal support for the official story of “global collapse”, but it has been enough to keep most structural engineers from publicly opposing the intransigent government stance on the WTC events.

From where, then, has the vocal support come within the engineering community? Matthew Rothschild points to some interesting characters when he says that “I made a few calls myself”, including to Gene Corley and to Mete Sozen. Additionally, Rothschild says that he consulted “some of the top building design and engineering firms”, like Skidmore Owings & Merrill, and Greenhorne & O’Mara. To emphasize just how solid the government’s story is, he adds that he “also contacted engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country, and none of them puts any stock in the 9/11 conspiracy theories.”

What Mr. Rothschild failed to tell us is that Gene Corley and Mete Sozen not only created the reports that he is defending, but have also, for many years, worked for the US Department of Defense (DOD) through the Blast Mitigation for Structures Program (BMSP). Since 1997, this program has provided the DOD with expertise in explosives, and has been funded at $10 million annually.[2] After 9/11, astronomical increases in DOD funding were likely to have benefited all DOD partners and programs, like DOD’s Nunn-Perry award winner, Greenhorne & O’Mara, and those involved with the BMSP. Of course, the DOD was probably already awash in black-budget funds prior to 9/11, as indicated by the missing trillions reported by the DOD on 9/10/01.[3]

Rothschild also failed to let us know that Skidmore Owings & Merrill (SOM), one of his independent engineering firms, is responsible for the architectural design of the new Freedom Tower. SOM gained that contract at the personal insistence of Larry Silverstein, the original owner of WTC 7 and the WTC towers’ leaseholder. Mr. Rothschild may also not be aware that William Baker, a top executive at SOM, was involved in several of the official WTC investigations and reports that have been generated. In any case it is clear that the “Freedom Tower” would not be the publicity-rich project it is today if an alternative explanation forced us to rename it the “There Goes Our Freedom Tower”.
*************************************
The article continues here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5071
You posted that a few days ago. Do you even realise you are just spamming the same nonsense over and over? It just makes it clear that there isn’t any point responding and pointing out the problems because you will just post it again next week.



What makes you believe this?
If there were temperatures around the melting point of steel, and if there were liquid steel flowing out the side of the building we would see the steel in that area visibly affected. We don’t.


As far as I'm concerned, the evidence that the WTC collapses were due to controlled demolitions is overwhelming. Thus, it is my 'working model', if you will. I will certainly try to see if evidence can work with this model. Scientists do this all the time. And just like scientists, if I'm not sure it does or if I find that it outright doesn't, I will certainly take this into account.

I can certainly believe that some of the theories may need a little work. People like Steven Jones have emphatically stated that they would like more research to be done on all of these things. Heck, even Ryan Mackey claims that more research could shed more light on certain issues.

I think you may have seen from Headspin's youtube video on the subject of molten aluminum at 1000 Fahrenheit that molten aluminum when poured at that temperature is definitely silver.
Even in that video it is glowing orange while being poured. Watch it for yourself. It goes silver once it hits the pan.

However there were most likely other materials in the aluminium as well.

Since even NIST doesn't believe the metal could have been any hotter and yet the metal is yellow/white, it makes it clear that what was coming out of that building couldn't have been molten aluminum.
Only if you have blinkers on.


Can you cite where I supposedly did this?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2062278&postcount=1641

You are trying to imply that either that NIST report is contradictory or that the temperatures never went over 600, or something I’m not sure what your point is here anymore.


I would argue the opposite. Why is it that you feel that Ryan is wrong?
An office fire started with jet fuel is enough to weaken steel. There have been pervious examples of this so just claiming it can’t happen is meaningless.
 
Where did the oxygen all go?

Have you seen the Kuwaiti oil fires? See how much smoke there is? Would you then say that they were oxygen starved?

No there was clearly plenty of oxygen for the fires to weaken the steel.

I can't debate you on the above because I don't have the knowledge in that area. However, I'll quote an authority on the subject, Dr. Ray Griffin, in relation to the WTC fires:
*********************
...the reason to say that the fires were oxygen starved is that black smoke was issuing forth, as even Thomas Eagar and NIST admit (see my discussion of NIST’s “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions” in “Debunking 9/11 Debunking”).
*********************
http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-74082.html
 
I'm certainly not a supporter of the conservative party in the following election, but I saw this a few moments ago:
"Sarah Palin Supports New 9/11 Investigation "

http://www.prisonplanet.com/sarah-palin-supports-new-911-investigation.html


It got me thinking: who else here at the very least supports a new investigation, one that isn't mired by Bush administration appointees and the like?

“I do because I think that helps us get to the point of never again, and if anything that we could do could still complete that reminder out there,” the Alaska Governor added.

Quite clearly, she is talking about the national security failures that allowed the attacks to take place. If she stated any different, i.e. thinking that the US government was involved in staging the attacks, then these comments would make the front page and they lose any chance they had of winning the election.

I can't believe I just defended that bitch... look what you made me do you fucking truther!!

haha

By the way... so far as I'm aware, the 9/11 commission was set up not because of conspiracy theory concerns, but to investigate the failures of national security and so on...
 
I can't debate you on the above because I don't have the knowledge in that area. However, I'll quote an authority on the subject, Dr. Ray Griffin, in relation to the WTC fires:
*********************
...the reason to say that the fires were oxygen starved is that black smoke was issuing forth, as even Thomas Eagar and NIST admit (see my discussion of NIST’s “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions” in “Debunking 9/11 Debunking”).
*********************
http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-74082.html

Scott, you don't need to be an expert in the matter; all you have to have done is been alive for a while. Haven't you ever seen a fire that has given off thick black smoke when it clearly isn't oxygen starved?

If not, then here is an experiment:

Take an assortment of plastics and rubber (like a car tyre) and set fire to them. Make sure they are out in the open so that they can't be said to be oxygen starved. Now observe the thick black smoke as the fire burns.
 
I can't debate you on the above because I don't have the knowledge in that area. However, I'll quote an authority on the subject, Dr. Ray Griffin, in relation to the WTC fires:
Dr Ray Griffin is not an authority on the subject. He is a theologian. See below.

*********************
...the reason to say that the fires were oxygen starved is that black smoke was issuing forth, as even Thomas Eagar and NIST admit (see my discussion of NIST’s “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions” in “Debunking 9/11 Debunking”).
*********************
http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-74082.html
The color of the smoke is not an indicator as to a fire being oxygen starved. The example I used previously was the burning oil wells. They are completely out in the open with plenty of oxygen yet they produce thick black smoke. But you ignored the example I gave and just posted more nonsense from one of the 9/11 “experts”. It is the blind leading the blind.
 
Why did they wait so long to blow the charges? It would make much more sense to blow them WHEN the planes struck the building, it would cover it up the best. Why wait almost an hour?
 
Once again, smaller building, not hit by planes, concrete core and the steel supports still collapsed…..

Mackey said something similar in his essay "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin's Latest Criticism
of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation":
"... [the Madrid skyscraper] experienced a partial collapse of its steel components only escaping total collapse due to its concrete construction.
p.40
"

Jim Hoffman responded thusly:
"Mackey's unqualified confidence that the Madrid skyscraper would have totally collapsed if it were steel-framed, is in stark contrast to the fact that fire has never caused the collapse of a steel-framed highrise."

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top