9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)
- Thread starter Stryder
- Start date
- Status
Does this have to be mentioned again????
The towers used a lot of Aluminium framework around the glazing, this was to cut down on the overall weight of the structure. Aluminium melts at a fairly low temperature, aluminium when superheated can generate a thermite reaction if the molten aluminium is melting onto joints and welds of an iron structure (Iron oxide).
This basically means that a reaction can occur that looks like an explosive occur but is actually just caused by the right materials merging under the right conditions.
(I missed out that Aviation fuel was also present in the mix which would of also potentially caused such a catalyst.)
The towers used a lot of Aluminium framework around the glazing, this was to cut down on the overall weight of the structure. Aluminium melts at a fairly low temperature, aluminium when superheated can generate a thermite reaction if the molten aluminium is melting onto joints and welds of an iron structure (Iron oxide).
This basically means that a reaction can occur that looks like an explosive occur but is actually just caused by the right materials merging under the right conditions.
(I missed out that Aviation fuel was also present in the mix which would of also potentially caused such a catalyst.)
Last edited:
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
All I saw was dust, the video is inconclusive. Photographic evidence please. You're worst then the people who peddle blurry videos then call them UFO's.
'
You can't name the fucking building can you? You fucking fail at debating.
Please present the data, you're lying once again. Always making false claims, then you have the audacity to fall back on the same nameless spook in that youtube video of yours.
The first seismic spike occurred at 9:59:04 (The same exact time the towers started to fall.
The second seismic spike occurred at 10:28:01(Just before the south tower collapsed)
The explosives planted in the basement weakened the foundation which assisted the building in falling in it's own footprint.
Here's Peter Jennings from ABC interviewing another WTC survivor. She describes an explosion that occurred in the basement. She was in the freight elevator located in the basement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP--wz0
Here's what I have to support my theory. Multiple reports from firefighters saying they heard large explosions. Dr Steven Jones has found thermate in the WTC Steele. The Bomb squad was called into the WTC towers. The Seismic data shows that a 2.3 earthquake occurred before the collapse. Two janitors located in the basement of the WTC heared, and saw the doors blown off the elevators. Multiple on site news reporters confirming that they heard large explosions. And lastly, a Steele skyscraper has never collapsed due to fire.
First of all, military grade thermate charges were used. And yes there were loud noises prior to the collapse. Here's CNN talking about the explosions, you can hear the explosion also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNLy6hQQNwk&feature=related
To much dust was present to get a clear view of anything. That's why you study the actual material as Dr. Steven Jones did, not the videos.
The explosions were heard. I've posted a mountain of evidence that supports that.
The WTC Steele was immediately shipped off to China and South Korea. That's why the NIST had very limited material to use in their investigation.
Why do insist on comparing Jet Fuel to a nuclear combustible? Jet Fuel is made of Kerosene, most of the Kerosene was evaporated during the initial explosion, that's what caused the HUGE fireball on the initial impact.
You said it was the planes impact that caused most of the severe damage. So now you're saying it was the Jet Fuel. Make up your mind, my point is, planes don't do shit to buildings. Bombs do.
:crazy:
Ditto, and I think you're batshit insane for believing the official story. You didn't debunk shit.
This is why the only people who think they have any facts are people like you, who think it's valid to compare a B-25 with a 767. People like you who can't tell the difference between a 200 ton bullet and the wind.[/quote
You don't have any facts. 99.9% of everything you posted was from the same nameless youtube video. And I didn't say a B-25 was the same size of a 757. I wanted to show you another case of what happens when a plane carrying jetfuel crashes into a building. Even if the B-25 was smaller, it should of showed some similar characteristics(on a smaller scale) to the WTC jetliner crash.
Sigh :shrug:
I didn't see anyone cut anything, just a still image.
Not it's not, your mind is incapable of critical thinking. You ignore everything doesn't coincide with your Fanstasy of 911.
Your photo only raises more questions.
Last edited:
The "Explosion" they were talking about was of course the aircraft, when they mention "Bomb" they are referring to the original bombing attempt done on the WTC in 1993.
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
Negative. The plane explosion happened 90 floors above the basement. Also, here's another quote from another WTC worker in the basement.
"There was nothing there but rubble' Mike said. 'We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!' The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. 'You could stand here,' he said, 'and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming.' But there was still no answer."
The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. "There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything" he said.
http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029
Here's a better picture of the WTC. I highlighted in red where the impact occurred, and highlighted in blue where the janitors were located in the basement parking lot.
The initial blast wouldn't of incinerated people located in the subterranean. After the blast he rescued a woman who's skin was melting off as a result of being to close to the "explosion".
Last edited:
I doubt you've ever watched the film Backdraft. You've a mix of debris, Aviation fuel and fire combusting in an enclosed space... an elevator shaft, Of course it's going to cause a bang (Much like a gun does when an explosive fires a projectile out of the chamber), elevators will fail and fall under such changes in pressure as a burnout.
Also during the actual collapse it would of cause seismic shocks which would of aided in the collapse of walls that you mention.
Also during the actual collapse it would of cause seismic shocks which would of aided in the collapse of walls that you mention.
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
Yes, but a shitty Ron Howard movie has nothing to do with the circumstances that caused the towers to fall.
The Back-draft wasn't responsible for the pools of molten Steele present in the basement 2 weeks after the incident. Whatever created the pools of molten Steele, caused the underground explosions.
(CBS) Firefighters have extinguished almost all but the last remnants of underground fires that have burned at the World Trade Center site for more than three months since the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/archive/main321907.shtml
A Kerosene fire, powered by office equipment, doesn't burn for 3 months after the incident, after rain, after multiple attempts from the NYFD to contain it.
Another example of your dishonesty... "I don't see a man cutting, I just see him hoisted above a standing beam pretending to cut", "I don't see any damage to the surrounding buildings of the WTC".
Your dishonesty is there for all to see.
It is entirely inconsequential wether or not I can name any of the buildings. From the image you clearly see WTC debris on the roofs of the surrounding buildings and you see a glass roof 500 to 600 feet away from the footprint of one of the towers is smashed.
You pretend you can't see this. This proves you are dishonest.
Did I not just give you my source? Namely the National Institute of Standards and Technology? NIST demonstrated that the collapse was initiated by weakened structure due to fire as demonstrated by the visible 'bowing' of the WTC in the areas worst effected by the heat.
I've yet to hear a CT explain the bowing by the way.
I'll take an opportunity here to be honest and say that I can not explain this (if of course it's true what you are saying).
Flawed logic. The basement played absolutely no part in the collapse as it was initiated on the higher floors and each floor collapsed not because of what was happening below, but what was happening above. Parts of the lower structure were in fact the only recognisable parts of the building still standing.
The investigators are all to well aware of this. Even NIST interviewed people who described fireballs coming through elevator shafts on lower floors after the plane hit, which just supports the theory of ignited jet fuel travelling down the elevator shafts.
Even though when they made those quotes, they didn't know what those sounds were, whereas today they have a better idea. To this day they don't voice their knowledge of a conspiracy, and you think they would since they lost hundreds of their colleagues. Your explanation for this is that they have been "silenced". How disrespectful.
Debunked:
http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html
Did they find anything?
You desperately need to familiarize yourself with the sounds a controlled demolition produces, namely explosions heard for miles around. All demolition firms deny that the WTC had any hallmarks of a controlled demolition.
It's important to know at what time that explosion is heard. If it is seconds before the WTC7 collapses, then that could be seen as proof of a controlled demolition (or just a coincidence), but what if it was hours before the WTC7 collapsed?
What if it was one of the diesel tanks inside the WTC7 building exploded? What if it was the fuel tank of a car exploding (which was verified as happening on 9/11), What if it was rounds of ammo going off in the munitions building which was damaged on 9/11?
We don't know what that explosion is, and more importantly, we don't know what TIME it happened. Firefighters pulled out of WTC7 hours before it collapsed, so if that sound came at 2pm for instance, then it can't possibly be demolition explosives.
The work of the American Jesus believing Steven Jones is completely discredited. He has no scientific consensus on his evidence = he fails. Science has no bias, if he had something to offer, he would be successful.
There were many verified explosions on that day that had nothing to do with bombs. I'll say it again, explosion does not mean bomb. And more importantly when the WTC fell, no bombs were heard the first thing you hear is a slow rumble but no explosions.
It was both. Structural damage caused by the plane, and fires caused by the fuel.
I think this quote speaks for itself: you are an idiot.
Yes, I really am insane for siding with the experts on this one.
On a much, much smaller scale. Had a 550mph 767 hit the Empire State Bulding instead of a low fuelled small plane traveling at approach speed, it would be an entirely different story.
Denial.
Plus you blatantly ignored the cleanup operator speaking to a camera saying they did cut beams and that they planned on cutting more beams.
You are dishonest.
Your photo only raises more questions.
What questions?
So many good books explain in details hwy the Administration version is a crap . Those who believe anything the media and the government say are the ones who are less educated , less intelligent and brainwashed to the last cell in their bodies .
A bomb would not cause this either, so what is your point? There is still no evidence for molten steel. There may have been glowing metal but that doesn't mean molten steel unless you are a conspiracy theorist with no real interest in evidence.
You go on about bombs and explosions and then you mention thermite, which is an incendiary.
Then there is more about bombs in the basement. If there were bombs in the basement what did they do? The collapse started at the point of impact near the top of the building!
As all your theories get shot down you just keep churning out the same old debunked nonsense. The B25 one is always good for a laugh though.
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
Aluminum & Kerosene couldn't fuel a fire for 3 months. Kerosene & Office doesn't burn that hot. As for evidence. No matter how much that emotionally effects you it doesn't change the reality of the situation.
Yes Thermite is incendiary, however, have you ever heard of Thermite Grenades? Also, based on the eyewitness reports, seismic data, and traces of Thermite found in the Steele, the evidence suggest that bombs were present, along with the thermate that was found in the WTC steele.
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
Actually your is, you said 1:42 seconds in the video you see the workers cutting the steele. No such thing occurred in that video.
Yes it is, because it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.
Nope, it actually proves the opposite. 100% of your evidence is misleading, unaccredited or false representations of the facts.
NIST isn't a independent organization, it's Government agency.
Progress at last!
According the engineers who were present in the basement almost everything was pulverized. Regardless of the intention, the evidence suggest that bombs blew up in the basement.
The kerosene fire balls didn't posses the energy to pulverize at 50 ton hydraulic press located in the 3 stories below in the basement.
I'll take their version of the events over yours, since they were there, and you weren't. Especially since they were there when the 1993 bomb hit, you weren't.
I said a GAG order was placed on the NYFD that's why they weren't questioned by the 911 commission How in the fuck can one determine what happened if you didn't interview the people who were actually there.
Debunked:
http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html
Who debunked it, give one name of the Scientist who made this claims?
The seismic data reported a 2.3 earthquake before the towers failed. Why do you keep revisiting this point where the physical evidence supports the bomb theory.
I've posted plenty of evidence for that already, If you chose to ignore then that's your prerogative.
What if it was a controlled demolition?
WTC definitely was a controlled Demolition, Larry Silverstein said it himself.
And the person who blamed Bin Laden says he talks to Jesus (Bush).
May I see the evidence that lead you that conclusion? Probably more falsehoods from you.
All the evidence points towards bomb being detonated.
And I believe you're a child molester.
You mean Government experts, the same geniuses that said the WMD's was a slam dunk.
Not without the assistance of bombs bringing down the structure.
The video didn't show him cutting anything, you said the video showed them cutting the beam. Until you can produce that your video is inconclusive.
You're dishonest.
The engine of 757 is much bigger then the minuscule one depicted in your photo.
Last edited:
There was more than enough evidence in that video from the horses mouth, that they cut the beams. How else do you expect them to carry away the larger peices of the beams that were still standing? The engineer stated in the video that each one weighed between 50 and 60 tons. Of course they had to be cut.
Once again, you avoided answering my question. Do you see debris on the roofs of the buildings surrounding the ground zero? Yes or no?
NIST also is providing practical guidance and tools to better prepare facility owners, contractors, architects, engineers, emergency responders, and regulatory authorities to respond to future disasters.
That was their job with the WTC report. They have nothing to do with the Bush administration.
Well I've been reading about it, and it seems that the times in the seismic data may not be so clear cut:
http://www.911myths.com/html/seismic_proof_.html
Sources are provided in that website.
It's basically the same thing about what Loose Change did with Flight 93, suggesting that 3 minutes or so of the voice recorder were missing. But there are only 3 minutes missing if we take initial reports of time of the crash as accurate.
Just a thought... but maybe that damage occurred by the thousands of tons of building that fell on top of it?
Find me one person today who heard explosions in the WTC who thinks it was an inside job. You seem to be putting words in their mouths.
I was about to ask you the same thing. Nevertheless my point is, if firefighters know there were bombs in the WTC then why are they not saying it today? The media would eat that shit up.
If you would have read that web page you would have seen sources which concur with Jones on the elements found in the WTC dust, but that these elements are natrually ocurring in office buildings and it is mere assumption that some of those elements came form thermite.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html
Thus we can conclude that Jones did not prove thermate bombs were used. He has no scientific consensus = fail.
No, you gave evidence of a noise being heard. There is no evidence of where the noise came from or what time of day the noise was heard.
If you hear a sound outside your window, do you automatically assume it is a burglar?
Oh for fuck sake!
Larry Silverstein said "pull it" referring to the fire fighters being removed from the building as they feared it would collapse.
It was the fire cheif who called Larry and told him they would pull the fire fighters out and Larry agreed. Even if Larry refused and demanded the fire fighters stay, the fire chief could overrule him and still pull them out. Larry had no say in the matter.
Even if he did mean to pull the building down, how do you demolish a building within a few hours? It takes months to plan and set up.
From all of the dozens of cameras that captured the collapse, not one captured any explosion in the moments before the towers fell. Had it actually been a controlled demolition, there would be unmistakable explosions heard by just about all of the cameras.
Assertion. Experts in demolition say it was not a controlled demolition. No offense, but I trust them over you.
The engine of 757 is much bigger then the minuscule one depicted in your photo.
You do realise that you are comparing a complete engine to a compressor rotor, right? A compressor rotor is a component of an engine, not the whole engine itself.
When you crash a plane into a building at 550mph, the engine no longer looks as it was in your strawman picture.
If there was molten metal twelve weeks later, and I doubt that, a short explosive device would not be the cause. Thermite burns quickly and would not cause that either. So once again, what is your point here?
No. Glowing metal is not the same as molten steel. You need to produce some evidence of molten steel.
Aluminum will melt at a far lower temperature than steel. Can you show evidence that it was steel and not aluminum?
The eyewitness reports are of hearing explosions which is no surprise at all. It is dishonest to try and pass that off as evidence for bombs.
The claims of thermite, which does not explode, come from a man who is basically a running joke. His main area of work is not structural engineering or metals it is in cold fusion. He was too scared to publish his work in a relevant peer reviewed journal. I wonder why…
Stop for a second and think about your rationalizing there. You have a building loaded with invisible bombs and massive amounts of thermite (which no one saw) and they are going to fly planes into it. Why fly planes into it? Lack of evidence aside, the conspiracy theories make no sense.
The pancaking caused the collapse and it started at the top of the building. If there were bombs in the basement they didn't do anything.
Due to my argumentative nature I tend to get involved in these discussions. There isn’t much for me to add here though as Kenny has been taking your posts apart.
Another gem.
phoenix2634
Registered Senior Member
Are you really that stupid...
This is a list of the other buildings that were damaged or destroyed...compliments of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
I'm not going to waste any more time taking Ganymede point for point as it is an exercise in futility. So in summary, I would just like to explain exactly why CT’s have no credibility.
CT's have a history of being dishonest or never admitting their own mistakes. Their strange desire to explain everything as a cover-up just simply confuses me. I do not see the attraction or their motives for believing such things without the remotest piece of evidence.
How can CT's claim to have rationally studied the events of 9/11 when they simply discard evidence that doesn't fit there agenda, and when there is something enigmatic about 9/11, or perhaps some quotes that can be misused, or facts that can be misrepresented, they take advantage.
They have a preference of conspiracy over material enquiry, and they will deliberately misrepresent the evidence in an attempt to mislead others to believe as they do.
Demolition experts say if it was a controlled demolition, then we should see some easily identifiable hallmarks. But there are simply none. CT's try to find similarities, whether similarities are there or not... and since there are none, they make ones up. Experts say that if it was a controlled demolition, there are many things we should find in the debris, observe from it's collapse, and all of the windows in the surrounding buildings should have been blown out. The towers began to fall (silently) from the exact point of impact and area most damaged by fire, from top to bottom, no "squibs" seen or heard before collapse, no explosive flashes seen before collapse and every floor being pulverized in a pancake collapse. NO hallmarks of a controlled demolition. And yet CT's still try to argue the point that there were similarities.
And that's just the collapse itself; don't even get demolition experts to tell you what goes into planning a collapse. It is an exhaustive process and that's with abandoned buildings. It would simply be impossible to do in a busy office building if you wanted it to be a secret. You also have to ask yourself why those "in on it" would even want to demolish this building. Not only do CT’s fail at describing how these magical feats could be achieved, fail at providing evidence, but they also fail at providing a logical motive.
Since all this completely disproves a controlled demolition, the CT's continue to ignore the bigger picture and instead focus on some quotes which they take out of context and try to use it as evidence of something which has never been found to this day.
Such experts are CT's that they can't make obvious mistakes and won't concede error except by evasion. However, in science, frauds are exposed and this is why CT's never enjoy any consensus except amongst like-minded dolts.
The only thing CT's have been able to do is criticize credible science and history of events and even then, their criticisms are easily debunked by anyone with integrity.
It's just amazing how someone can be shown to be wrong 100% of the time, and yet maintain that they know the absolute truth. By watching any of their propaganda videos, you consistently see lies, out of context quotes, logical fallacies, and sheer disrespect to the people most affected by 9/11. CT's turn out on mass to demonstrate at ground zero every September 11th and chant their hatred through megaphones.
I never thought I'd say this, but perhaps these people should join a religion or something... But perhaps then instead of protesting at ground zero in front of greiving families, they would be protesting at the funerals of gay people.
CT's have a history of being dishonest or never admitting their own mistakes. Their strange desire to explain everything as a cover-up just simply confuses me. I do not see the attraction or their motives for believing such things without the remotest piece of evidence.
How can CT's claim to have rationally studied the events of 9/11 when they simply discard evidence that doesn't fit there agenda, and when there is something enigmatic about 9/11, or perhaps some quotes that can be misused, or facts that can be misrepresented, they take advantage.
They have a preference of conspiracy over material enquiry, and they will deliberately misrepresent the evidence in an attempt to mislead others to believe as they do.
Demolition experts say if it was a controlled demolition, then we should see some easily identifiable hallmarks. But there are simply none. CT's try to find similarities, whether similarities are there or not... and since there are none, they make ones up. Experts say that if it was a controlled demolition, there are many things we should find in the debris, observe from it's collapse, and all of the windows in the surrounding buildings should have been blown out. The towers began to fall (silently) from the exact point of impact and area most damaged by fire, from top to bottom, no "squibs" seen or heard before collapse, no explosive flashes seen before collapse and every floor being pulverized in a pancake collapse. NO hallmarks of a controlled demolition. And yet CT's still try to argue the point that there were similarities.
And that's just the collapse itself; don't even get demolition experts to tell you what goes into planning a collapse. It is an exhaustive process and that's with abandoned buildings. It would simply be impossible to do in a busy office building if you wanted it to be a secret. You also have to ask yourself why those "in on it" would even want to demolish this building. Not only do CT’s fail at describing how these magical feats could be achieved, fail at providing evidence, but they also fail at providing a logical motive.
Since all this completely disproves a controlled demolition, the CT's continue to ignore the bigger picture and instead focus on some quotes which they take out of context and try to use it as evidence of something which has never been found to this day.
Such experts are CT's that they can't make obvious mistakes and won't concede error except by evasion. However, in science, frauds are exposed and this is why CT's never enjoy any consensus except amongst like-minded dolts.
The only thing CT's have been able to do is criticize credible science and history of events and even then, their criticisms are easily debunked by anyone with integrity.
It's just amazing how someone can be shown to be wrong 100% of the time, and yet maintain that they know the absolute truth. By watching any of their propaganda videos, you consistently see lies, out of context quotes, logical fallacies, and sheer disrespect to the people most affected by 9/11. CT's turn out on mass to demonstrate at ground zero every September 11th and chant their hatred through megaphones.
I never thought I'd say this, but perhaps these people should join a religion or something... But perhaps then instead of protesting at ground zero in front of greiving families, they would be protesting at the funerals of gay people.
Last edited:
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
Are you really that stupid...
Are you really a child molester? At least I'm not stupid enough use wiki as a credible source. And point to Kenny was no other buildings suffered any significant danger. If you have the pictures please post them, if not STFU.
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
Once again, your video is inconclusive.
Debris on a rooftop doesn't equal significant damage.
They should of learned after the 1993 obviously not, the NIST is a fraud. That's why the 911 families petitioned them to re-examine their erroneous conclusions.
This is the most secretive, corrupt, and misleading administration in the History of American Politics. They had their hands all over the investigation, as they did the CIA, and every other agency under their jurisdiction. Only a guilty person refuses to go on the record when he or she is allegedly innocent.
I'm not looking at any fraudulent links. Link from a mainstream source please.
Provide the fucking sources then.
Whenever you Government spooks get cornered, you bring up loose change.
Anthony Saltalamacchia, William Rodriguez, lets start with those 2 smart ass.
The reason the 911 commission refused to interview the NY Firefighters was because their reports of molten steele and explosions would of shot numerous holes in their Conspiracy theory that 19 arabs with box cutters.
The link you posted makes no such claim.
Not the samples that he tested. That's why Government removed tons of incriminating evidence before any investigation was done on the crime scene. To cover their tracks.
Read the seismic data, the earthquake was registered before the tower collapse. You've lost this point, move on already.
Oh for fuck sake!
That's not what he said. He never said that, he said he decided to pull the building. He didn't say shit about firefighters liar.
Larry would of said "We evacuated the building" not we pulled the building. Find me one fucking quote from any firefighter prior to 911 that uses the phrase "Pull the building".
[quoteEven if he did mean to pull the building down, how do you demolish a building within a few hours? It takes months to plan and set up.[/quote]
The charges were placed before 911, Marvin Bush (George's Brother) was head of the private company that provided security for the WTC, eventhough his contract expired on.. You guessed it, 9-11.
They did. I've posted them, I can't help it if you're not having a honest debate.
They, were, multiple eyewitness, and news reporters said so. You've lost this point, move on already.
wrong...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aA
That compressor rotor could of came from a global hawk. That picture doesn't prove it was a 757 engine.
An amateur Arab terrorist doesn't posses the piloting skill to pull off the maneuver you're referring to.
"Pull the building" was never said by Larry Silverstein.
Err.. he said he was called by the Fire commander.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
Not one of the dozens of cameras capturing the collapse of the WTC recorded any audio sound of explosions in the seconds before the collapse.
- Status