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

[voyager]

wooden framed structure, nothing left standing.
inconsistent with WTC high rise and in one tower the sides were left standing after the collapse.
it would be pretty easy to gather stuff like this after the fact.
go back before 9-11 and look at CDs from pre 9-11.
furthermore get your info from bonafide demolition sites.
the videos are out there, you just have to search for them.

 

[Headspin]

wooden framed structure, nothing left standing.
inconsistent with WTC high rise and in one tower the sides were left standing after the collapse.

Wasn't your point that demolitions can only be done bottom up, not top down? the video invalidates that belief:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

the structure is steel, and even if wooden makes no difference to whether top down demolition is possible. the towers were a tube in a tube so it would be expected that the outer walls at the bottom were left standing if the inner tube was demolished.

it would be pretty easy to gather stuff like this after the fact.
go back before 9-11 and look at CDs from pre 9-11.
furthermore get your info from bonafide demolition sites.
the videos are out there, you just have to search for them.

I really don't understand what point you are making, could you clarify? you seem to be saying that if video is not on a "bonafide demolition site" (what's that?), then its not valid - i would disagree with that position.
or maybe you're saying the towers were not demolished in a classic bottom up fasion - I would agree with that position.

 

[voyager]

Wasn't your point that demolitions can only be done bottom up, not top down? the video invalidates that belief:

i stated that the collapse of the twin towers was inconsistent with a controlled demolition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

does the above video look like the collapse of the towers?

the structure is steel, and even if wooden makes no difference to whether top down demolition is possible. the towers were a tube in a tube so it would be expected that the outer walls at the bottom were left standing if the inner tube was demolished.

on one of the towers almost one entire side was still standing shortly after the collapse, not just the bottom part.

I really don't understand what point you are making, could you clarify?

the point i'm trying to make is that the towers fell in a manner that is not consistent with a controlled demolition.

you seem to be saying that if video is not on a "bonafide demolition site" (what's that?), then its not valid - i would disagree with that position.

not at all. the video speaks for itself, but one video isn't much evidence nor does it state who did the demolition.

 

[KennyJC]

Wasn't your point that demolitions can only be done bottom up, not top down? the video invalidates that belief:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

Notice the sequential sound blasts accompanied by flashes. Where were these on the WTC if we are to believe the WTC was a demolition?

 

[GeoffP]

the towers exploded top down:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&e

They didn't explode top down, they collapsed top down. And if you're saying there were explosives all the way down, why did it collapse at the impact site, J?

 

[Headspin]

i stated that the collapse of the twin towers was inconsistent with a controlled demolition.

I think you might be placing emphasis on the word "controlled" whereas i would emphasize "demolition". The issue is whether the towers were brought down by explosives or collapsed due to fire. the term "controlled demolition" defines a subset of "demolition" which is inappropriate to the issue of whether explosives were used. controlled demolition in the professional sense has other factors to consider - legal implication of unwanted damage, safety factors, preservation of neighbouring buildings, etc.

does the above video look like the collapse of the towers?

yes, i can visualise that kind of top down destruction to the inner core.

on one of the towers almost one entire side was still standing shortly after the collapse, not just the bottom part.

i don't know why this would contradict what i said - that the inner core tube was demolished top down like in the video.

not at all. the video speaks for itself, but one video isn't much evidence nor does it state who did the demolition.

what it proves is that it is possible to demolish a multi storey structure from the top down. its almost as if you need to see more than one top down demolition to believe that a top down demolition is possible.

 

[Headspin]

Notice the sequential sound blasts accompanied by flashes. Where were these on the WTC if we are to believe the WTC was a demolition?

They would have been in the inner core tube structure, in a manner like the top down demolition video shows. the amount of concrete that turned to "dust" in mid air concealed a lot of what was going on but you can see flashes in the other video towards the top right of the dust cloud here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&e

explosions were heard. this is an old issue that has been mentioned to you before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw
118 firefighters report explosions, analysis here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

 

[Headspin]

They didn't explode top down, they collapsed top down.

if you are right then i will agree with you.

And if you're saying there were explosives all the way down, why did it collapse at the impact site, J?

because the explosions started near the impact site, and went all the way down.

 

[voyager]

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=conrolled+demolitions&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f&aq=-1&oq=#
scroll down on the left and find some controlled demolitions.

 

[Headspin]

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=conrolled+demolitions&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f&aq=-1&oq=#
scroll down on the left and find some controlled demolitions.

I've seen demolitions, i still don't understand what you are getting at. what about the towers destruction make it impossible for it to be a demolition?

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

You guys tend not to read my direct links either; post excerpts, with the link below it if I want to read more.

You mentioned this idea that no one saw a plane fly over a while back as well as some other criticisms on the pentagon issue. I quoted your post (it wasn't that long, I'm hoping fair use covers it) and one of the creators of www.thepentacon.com, Aldo Marquis responded in kind. But to specifically address the point you mentioned:
************************************************
Wrong. Officer Roosevelt Roberts saw the plane banking away AFTER the explosion.

Ah so they actually claim to have a relevant witness now. When did he come out of the woodwork? Does Robert’s testimony match what he said in 2001?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3940436&postcount=3

Does his testimony even support what they are saying? Or are they just taking their own interpretation just as they did with all the people who claim to have seen it hit the pentagon?

I have posted the numbers of people who actually saw the plane hitting poles and hitting the pentagon. There are many of them and the testimony was taken straight away. If you think that is somehow invalidated by one questionable interpretation taken years later then you are leaning on your faith again.

Can I quote your post on Loose Change again? Aldo Marquis may respond once more (he told me he tried to get an account here but couldn't; the admins told me that it may have been that he didn't have javascript on or something but I haven't heard from him since).

Originally Posted by scott3x

This is the problem with the internet and fear. He has no idea what he is even talking about he is merely googling his way to reaffirm his denial.

:roflmao:

I like in Melbourne Australia. What am I scared of?

I'm not sure what his thoughts were on the matter. Perhaps you are afraid to face the truth. As Jack Nicholson said in "A few good men": "You can't handle the truth!" ;-).

Originally Posted by scott3xquote]
This is why we went out there.

That’s right they went out there with a belief already confirmed before gathering any evidence. They went out with preconceived notion and tried to shoehorn the evidence to fit it. They interviewed people who claimed to see the plane hitting the pentagon and then they interpreted what they wanted from the angles they described and concluded that the plane didn’t hit the pentagon!! [/quote]

They went there with the belief that the plane might not have come -at- all or if it did, to have been a much smaller one. They had no idea that the witnesses would say that there was a plane, but that it's flight path didn't comform to the official one and that, therefore, it couldn't have crashed into the pentagon because the damage would have had to have been different.

Originally Posted by scott3x

You can't simply take internet accounts as forensic proof of an impact of anything. People deduce things. They saw a plane fly by then see smoke or a fireball rise the area of the Pentagon, they deduce an impact.

People saw the impact!

People saw the plane hitting the light poles!!!

Now's the time when I think it'd be good for me to just quote you on this and see what he says.

These guys cling on to one witness account and discard the ones they don’t like. I’m now convinced that, of all the groups of conspiracy theorists, the pentacon guys are the most stupid.

Well you can believe that but so far what they've said has made sense to me. I can't refute everything you say here, but I attribute this to simply not knowing enough or perhaps having forgotten what I used to know on it. Aldo Marquis, on the other hand, could probably refute it all with ease.. if he were here. As it is, like I said, I may be able to get him to respond if I quote in the loose change forums..

 

[KennyJC]

They would have been in the inner core tube structure, in a manner like the top down demolition video shows. the amount of concrete that turned to "dust" in mid air concealed a lot of what was going on but you can see flashes in the other video towards the top right of the dust cloud here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&e

Oh you mean the inner core that was seen standing after the building around it collapsed? Why would you claim the demolition charges were in the core, when the core was the last thing to collapse in the WTC?

explosions were heard. this is an old issue that has been mentioned to you before.

Explosions were not heard by a single camera despite the fact many were in close proximity of the WTC.

118 firefighters report explosions, analysis here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

Is this the document where most of these 'explosions' were describing the tower as it fell? Although I wasn't there in person like the firefighters, there are reliable videos standing very close to the WTC and I hear nothing other than the expected rumble of a tower collapsing. No punctuated explosives like I heard in the video you showed me of the top-down demolition.

Lets not forget that the sound of bombs demolishing a building are unmistakable to the point that they create sound blasts capable of smashing windows in surrounding buildings.

At least thermite would explain the lack of audible explosives... I don't understand why you would invoke demolition charges even though the sound would be unmistakable to all the cameras in lower Manhatten.

You must take us for fools if you expect us to believe in silent bombs.

 

[KennyJC]

the amount of concrete that turned to "dust" in mid air concealed a lot of what was going on but you can see flashes in the other video towards the top right of the dust cloud here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&e

I don't see any flashes.

Amazing that you say the dust obscured these flashes, but the 'squibs' below the collapsing dust cloud would not be obscured. There are no flashes and the 'squibs' are slow, thus ruling out explosives and confirming compressed air being forced out.

 

[Headspin]

Oh you mean the inner core that was seen standing after the building around it collapsed? Why would you claim the demolition charges were in the core, when the core was the last thing to collapse in the WTC?

the complete core was not the last thing to collapse. if you do the measurements you'll see that only 30 floors height remained briefly, and the columns on the outside of the inner core were not there.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/9154

Explosions were not heard by a single camera despite the fact many were in close proximity of the WTC.

Nist refuse to release most of the video recordings, there are not many in the public domain that were filmed close, nothing like as close as the top down demolition video, the top of the towers were half a kilometer from the ground. I would expect the tight grid that was the external columns would dampen and reflect back inwards any shock waves to a degree.

Is this the document where most of these 'explosions' were describing the tower as it fell?

no, you're probably thinking of some debunker speculation, this is the analysis of the testimony of the 118 firefighters describing explosions and flashes of light, which mysteriously you say wasn't picked up on any cameras.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

Lets not forget that the sound of bombs demolishing a building are unmistakable to the point that they create sound blasts capable of smashing windows in surrounding buildings.

windows were broken in the surrounding buildings. Let us not forget that explosions 1/3 mile up in the sky are not comparable to any other building that was ever demolished.

At least thermite would explain the lack of audible explosives... I don't understand why you would invoke demolition charges even though the sound would be unmistakable to all the cameras in lower Manhatten.

I would suggest the sound that was the "roar" of the building coming down cannot be fully appreciated by sound recorded on cameras, this has to do with the limits that a camera has on recording amplitude.

 

[Headspin]

I don't see any flashes.

perhaps you need to look again in the smoke at the top and in the middle. unmistakable sparkling flashes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&e

Amazing that you say the dust obscured these flashes, but the 'squibs' below the collapsing dust cloud would not be obscured.

Any flashes occuring in the core are likely to be obscured by intact and upright perimeter columns. As the permeter columns peel away you can see flashes through the pulverised concrete cloud above the demolition wave. some of the debris ejecta were measured at 100mph.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

*****************************
4 minutes and change into it, I found it did no such thing. The first 4 minutes seem to be trying to establish that the director of loose change isn't connecting to 9/11 yet. Perhaps assuming he's preaching to people who want to believe him, he's countering the obvious comparisons to 9/11 that loose change is showing even as he's saying that there's no connections being drawn. A little after 4 minutes, the director of it seems to be either a very bad reader or deliberately lying when he says that a NORAD exercise had "nothing to do with planes being used as missiles", even as the article reads "One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center". I decided I'd stop watching at that point.
*****************************
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1988834&postcount=550

And? The first four minutes of LC struck me as unreasonable too. Yet, I stuck with it.

Geoff

I gritted my teeth and watched the first 12 minutes of SLC "Not Freakin' Again edition":
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561

Perhaps it has a point or 2, but I note that every time the creators of SLC find a claim they simply can't disprove, they simply say that there's no proof, instead of admitting that, if true, the report would be particularly damning for the official story.

 

[scott3x]

With something like the truth movement being a minority group with nothing established in mainstream science - How can they be taken seriously when even amongst them, there are vast condtradictions? The character of these people is in doubt....particularly when they try to establish something so remarkable that it would be the single most elaborate crime of all time. Look at what evidence they put fourth and ask yourself if these have a more mundane explanation; ask yourself if these people are motivated by truth; ask yourself if they are using their beliefs or fantasies to manipulate and deceive; ask yourself if these people are the least bit perturbed by the fact that all of mainstream science reject their claims.

Can Scott look himself in the mirror and say that he is being truthful to us or even himself?

I may be mistaken on some things, but I am telling you what I -believe- to be the truth. While there may be some divergences within the truth movement, there are also divergences amoung political parties, which are quite mainstream; no one has a lock on the truth, but I strongly believe that searching for the truth through investigation of the evidence is the way to go.

Or is there a rational voice in his head knowing that with each copy & paste from truther websites he does not know or care if it is true?

If I didn't care about the truth I would -not- bother with all this effort.

He will jump at the chance to say "no I genuinely believe what I'm telling you", at which point I would have to move from disgust to pity.

I'm not disgusted with you (though I have felt you have been rather rude at times). As to pity, I suppose. I think I prefer the term sympathy though; not so much 'poor thing'; more like 'I feel for him'. But one thing I can say Kenny is that you've got spirit and it seems to me that you respect the notion of the truth even if there are some things that obscure your view from some truths. I believe that that spirit will prevail over that which obscures your view in time.

The sad difference between religious fundamentalists and truthers is that at least the religious have nothing to go on and just assert that they are right and you are wrong.

And you think that's a benefit ?

With truthers, they can misrepresent actual physical happenings and smugly content that they are right and you are wrong based on their deceitful, ignorant and stupid interpretations of the physical world.

The last thing I feel here is smug. I find that this place frequently drains me and yet I can't let it go. I keep on thinking of all the people who died on 9/11 and all the people who have died since and continued to die; all based on a lie. I simply can't rest easy knowing that there are still people who believe the (at times changed) official story.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Originally Posted by shaman_

Originally Posted by scott3x

Originally Posted by shaman_

Originally Posted by scott3x

If anything, the temperature should have been -less- there if it was caused by office fires alone. After all, no plane hit WTC 7.

It cracks me up when I see this catch cry. By using it you are implying that a plane is enough to bring down a building.

I imply no such thing. I'm only implying that if no plane hit WTC 7, it was even -less- likely to collapse then the WTC buildings if no explosives were used.

lol right.

Are you suggesting that my logic is flawed? If so, where?

I lol'ed because by using ‘no plane hit this building’ it does imply that being hit by a plane is enough to destroy one. Don't you think that is a fair interpretation?

Sorry, no . My exact words were "If anything, the temperature should have been -less- there if it was caused by office fires alone. After all, no plane hit WTC ". Considering all the work I've put into demonstrating that even with planes, the temperature of the office fires could never have reached temperatures to collapse the WTC buildings, I'm surprised that you'd jump to the above stated conclusion.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Originally Posted by shaman_

Originally Posted by scott3x

Originally Posted by shaman_

Ah the article which states that they have found the reason for the collapse. While the evaporated comment is a strange one, if there were genuinely temperatures in that range then how did the engineers come to that conclusion?

A theory which has been discredited even by NIST.

The point was that the crew there did not come to a conclusion that had anything to do with the amazing temperatures required for evaporating steel.

Your previous point was "Ah the article which states that they have found the reason for the collapse". I show that the article's reason for its collapse has been discredited even by NIST, and now you insist that your point was that the crew couldn't figure out how temperatures could have gotten so hot so as to evaporate steel (about 5000 Fahrenheit, give or take). It's not that I mind your new point- it actually adds weight to the case that explosives were used, which can certainly reach such temperatures. It's just that I mind when you say that your point is one thing and then, when the evidence refutes your point, say that it's another.

I’m really trying to keep my patience here scott. The point in contention was regarding the investigators and a strange comment for evaporated steel. My comment was that they were confident that they found the cause and the explanation made no account for evaporating steel. I am well aware of the report recently released with a different explanation but again, no mention of evaporating steel or temperatures even remotely near what would be needed to evaporate steel. The discussion was not switching to ‘what caused WTC7?’ and no my point was not refuted.

After digging a bit further, it appears I mistook your "Ah the article which states that they have found the reason for the collapse" to mean that you -agreed- with the stated reason for the collapse, something which now seems clear you didn't. My apologies. But don't you find it... interesting that the recently released report makes "no mention of evaporating steel or temperatures even remotely near what would be needed to evaporate steel"?

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

As to the WTC collapses, there were some characteristics that definitely were consistent with a normal CD (Controlled Demolition).

name them.

I have before; it's all on the right hand side of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth page:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

There are also some that make it unusual for a CD. However, these unusual characteristics can still be accounted for by simply setting up an unusual CD.

what is the nature of this unusual CD and how does it differ from a "normal" CD?

Normal CDs start at the bottom, as happened in the case of WTC 7. In the twin towers, however, it started in the plane crash zones. The alternative theory argument is that this was done in order to make it appear to the average citizen that the planes and the resulting fires brought down the building instead of the truth; that they were brought down by CD.

The characteristics for a CD that the WTC collapses displayed can be found here:

in cases like this a person must find their own evidence, not rely on someone elses "word for it".

I know of no serious debater here who refuses to quote certain authorities; whether it be from NIST or Ryan Mackey for the official story side or on Steven Jones, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, David Griffin, Jim Hoffman and others for the alternate story side. Now, can you find anything that you disagree with in their list? And if so, what and why do you disagree with it?

It also exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

Finally, high-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

i'm not sure about 1 but:
2. the videos taken on 9-11 does indeed show the tops of the towers leaning to one side right before the collapse.

Only one; and yes, you're right it was leaning, something that can certainly happen in CDs (in fact, it is very hard to have a building collapse straight down even in CDs); but you didn't get a huge section of the building crashing down to the ground because it was pulverized in mid air.

almost one entire side of one of the WTC towers was still standing after the collapse.

For what, a second or 2? If memory serves, demolitions at times are not completely successful; sometimes explosives have to be put in again (and this time the conditions are much more dangerous). I'm sure that a side of the framework standing for a second or 2 is well within tolerance levels for a very successful CD.

3. do you doubt that jet fuel temperatures are sufficient to soften steel?

Perhaps in a sustained burn. But Kevin Ryan sums it up quite well in my view:
****************************************
"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."
****************************************
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911kevinrryanfired

finally, the buildings you mention were essentially girders with floors and walls attached.
the WTC buildings was of a different construction altogether.

Yes, the WTC buildings were of a stronger contruction.

watch and compare the videos, trust your eyes scott

One's eyes can tell us certain facts. But the brain has to interpret those facts and ascertain others from it. To do this, it frequently needs certain knowledge, knowledge that I would argue you may not yet have...