A new 9/11 thread?

[Read-Only]

What's funny, RO..I think I have actually come up with an idea of how regular ole thermite could be used to cause a vertical core column of the WTC to fail.

If anyone wants to hear my "Macgyverism" just let me know.

Heh-heh! Sure, I'd like to hear it.

I realize you could use something like firebricks (refractory blocks) with a deep groove cut into the them ans placed all the way around the beam, but the installation time needed for SO many beams would be weeks without hundreds of installers working. Hardly a practical approach.

Bu I'd still like to hear what you have in mind - maybe it's much better.

 

[scott3x]

There's no shame here for getting a thread locked. You don't need permission to start one. The only reason the 9/11 thread got combined, was because there were like 8 different threads..all about 9/11. It was just clean up duty. I don't think the admins want to turn this into a conspiracy site, but they will tolerate threads that contain good, passionate, above the belt debate that contains at least a little science.

I'm not so sure about that. I think I'll wait a bit longer, just see if Stryder gives it the ok...

 

[scott3x]

My first thought on a "Conspiracy Theory" subsection was, "Oh, no!! But then upon deeper reflection, I think it would be great - just like the pseudo subsection - another area that I wouldn't even bother having to wade through!

That's the spirit . Personally, I think what's truly funny though is that, despite the fact that you don't have to be here, here you are .

 

[scott3x]

As I said previously, I don't mind if there is a thread for the pentagon, WTC1+2, WTC7 and flight 93.

The conspiracy theorists have an annoying tendency to jump from one to the other. As one theory gets debunked they just move to the next one. While completing these circles the conspiracy theorist is sure there must be a conspiracy because of the large number of (debunked) claims.

I would argue that the case pertains more to official story believers. But I would love to have the 4 threads you mention. However, the one thing I do -not- want is to have a thread merged again, so I'll just see what Stryder says...

 

[scott3x]

I would recommend myself. An objective position on the issues would be critical, I would think.

Of course, to assign such a theory legitimate space on the board would be an admission in and of itself - which is why Scott suggests it - and so I might be skeptical of such a development.

If they don't want me, I'm fine with you. As to legitimacy, I think all it'd say is that they think it's something that should be discussed; doesn't mean they take sides. It's essentially the same as now except if we had more then 2 threads to discuss things, we would have smaller threads. Sometimes I like searching for things I've said, but if the thread is more then 100 pages, well.. it makes for a very tedious search.

More focused topics, less pages, easier search.

 

[scott3x]

yes..Yes...YES!! That's it!

Laugh . The alternative mainstream consensus is that it was thermate, not thermite, so no need to come up with gum lined ceramic hairpins or what not .