Thread: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

I am not an engineer, so I cannot argue those particular points. However, engineers are a dime a dozen, and if what you are saying is true, why is that not the biggest news story of all time? Engineers don't even say anything about any of that to their friends and family members. Why might that be?

I remember reading somewhere that it looked like a controlled explosion because of the way the building was built, which caused the floors to collapse on top of each other neatly. I haven't seen any reliable/believable evidence that would suggest it wasn't exactly what it looked like.

Originally Posted by Universal

I am not an engineer, so I cannot argue those particular points. However, engineers are a dime a dozen, and if what you are saying is true, why is that not the biggest news story of all time? Engineers don't even say anything about any of that to their friends and family members. Why might that be?
[/b]

Im not sure that you have to be an engineer to decide for yourself that the simple physics of what took place on 911 can only be explained by explosives. How did steel beams weighing many tons get thrown upwards during the "collapse" of the twin towers? How did the beams get shot like javelins up and out hundreds of feet with enough velocity to puncture and implant into other buildings?

As to your point of why this story is not bigger, and why engineers across the country havnt spoken up, well, they have. In fact dozens of scientists and engineers have created a number of scholarly organizations to deal specifically with this issue. Look up on google Scholars for 911 Truth, Pysics 911, and the Journal of 911 Studies - all created and organized by PhD professors and professional engineers and scientists.

The word is spreading rapidly. Even MSNBC had Steven Jones on a little while back explaining how the 8 second collapse of WTC 7 was the result of explosive "cutter" charges. Heres a link to a google video of this national coverage on MSNBC: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...+jones+msnbcWTC

And heres a video of WTC 7's implosion:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...87288866368337

Originally Posted by memeticverb

1. Huge segments of the steel structure of the towers were found implanted into nearby buildings. Many, many humongous steel beams were found jutting out of the sides of nearby buildings hundereds of feet away from the towers. How did they fly such long distances? If the towers had simply collapsed, all of the structure would have fallen downward, and you wouldn't find 30ft long beams being shot horizontally, (and vertically if you watch the videos.) [/b]

Did you watch the videos from near ground zero when they collapsed? Yeah, they went almost straight down, but the dust and fragments shot out and down through several city blocks. Some larger fragments were bound to get stuck in buildings.
Further, this goes AGAINST the claim that it was an intentional explosion--demolitions are set so that NO fragments are launched, and all the energy is spent on downing the building, not throwing rubble around.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

2. Melted steel was found, as well as the chemical signature of the thermite compound required for such melting. Read the article published by the BYU physics professor, Steven Jones. There are also easily available videos of the thermate reaction spilling literally tons of melted steel out of the side of one of the towers.[/b]

One, no melted steel was found, excepting aluminum, which melts at relatively low temperatures--you could melt aluminum on a campfire.
Two, do you even know what thermite is? It's relatively easy to produce, because it's so ridiculously simple. Iron oxide and aluminum powder. Iron oxide is just rust. When it burns, it produces molten iron and aluminum oxide.
So what is this chemical signature you're talking about? Oh no everybody! They found traces of rust and aluminum in the wreckage of a massive steel building! Who could have ever predicted that plot twist?!?

Originally Posted by memeticverb

3. The symmetry and speed of the collapse of the WTC 7 really can only be explained by controlled demolition if you consider the number of steel columns that would have to be simultaneously severed, at regular intervals, if not on every single floor. The building falls directly into the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall speed.[/b]

Not quite the path of least resistance. Moving it to the side would require overcoming the inertia of the building--getting up enough momentum to push it down sideways. Also, consider that in buildings, once the first floor collapses it builds up massive amounts of momentum which adds an incredible amount of stress to the floors below, causing a chain reaction.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

For most it would be because of the actions of the government immediately afterward, such as the refusal to release the tapes of firefighters and other emergency people saying that they heard explosions (and there are over a hundred such cases).[/b]

Withholding sensitive tapes while they are reviewed in such cases is commonplace. Evidence is almost exclusively kept from the public while it is reviewed, this is no landmark case.
Now, to say that this is all a conspiracy is MASSIVELY overestimating the abilities of the government to keep things quiet.
Ever heard of a "black ops" project? Basically, it's a government action kept entirely silent from the public, and from most of the government. Leaks are their biggest problem, so they keep the number of people "in" on the projects to a minimum--almost always under 100. That's not 100 working on the project, that's 100 who even know it exists. And even then, they suffer a LOT of leaks.
And you're suggesting that a number of people likely nearing the 1000 mark, and a significant number of whom have no prior security clearance, and hence no accumulated trust build up, are keeping perfectly silent? That none have come forward to confess or point the finger, despite ample opportunity to do so?

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Bush didn't do it. But right now im leaning towards the international military and oil/energy companies, as well as those who've always been ready to make a killing on war: the international banks.[/b]

And now you're blowing the conspiracy up even BIGGER! Keeping that many people silent is IMPOSSIBLE. Period.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Did you watch the videos from near ground zero when they collapsed? Yeah, they went almost straight down, but the dust and fragments shot out and down through several city blocks. Some larger fragments were bound to get stuck in buildings.
Further, this goes AGAINST the claim that it was an intentional explosion--demolitions are set so that NO fragments are launched, and all the energy is spent on downing the building, not throwing rubble around.
One, no melted steel was found, excepting aluminum, which melts at relatively low temperatures--you could melt aluminum on a campfire.
Two, do you even know what thermite is? It's relatively easy to produce, because it's so ridiculously simple. Iron oxide and aluminum powder. Iron oxide is just rust. When it burns, it produces molten iron and aluminum oxide.
So what is this chemical signature you're talking about? Oh no everybody! They found traces of rust and aluminum in the wreckage of a massive steel building! Who could have ever predicted that plot twist?!?
Not quite the path of least resistance. Moving it to the side would require overcoming the inertia of the building--getting up enough momentum to push it down sideways. Also, consider that in buildings, once the first floor collapses it builds up massive amounts of momentum which adds an incredible amount of stress to the floors below, causing a chain reaction.
Withholding sensitive tapes while they are reviewed in such cases is commonplace. Evidence is almost exclusively kept from the public while it is reviewed, this is no landmark case.
Now, to say that this is all a conspiracy is MASSIVELY overestimating the abilities of the government to keep things quiet.
Ever heard of a "black ops" project? Basically, it's a government action kept entirely silent from the public, and from most of the government. Leaks are their biggest problem, so they keep the number of people "in" on the projects to a minimum--almost always under 100. That's not 100 working on the project, that's 100 who even know it exists. And even then, they suffer a LOT of leaks.
And you're suggesting that a number of people likely nearing the 1000 mark, and a significant number of whom have no prior security clearance, and hence no accumulated trust build up, are keeping perfectly silent? That none have come forward to confess or point the finger, despite ample opportunity to do so?
And now you're blowing the conspiracy up even BIGGER! Keeping that many people silent is IMPOSSIBLE. Period.
[/b]

My friend...I implore you, logic can be very useful. Basically everything you've concluded is dead wrong and can be proven so with a few minutes research and common sense.

Now, what you're actually saying is that since the debris spread across the entire city, then we can expect pieces of the structure weighing several tons or more to be ejected vertically and horizontally with tremendous momentum? This is not logical, and circular reasoning to boot. You are exactly right that a massive cloud of debris exploded outward into the city, but the energy needed to create so much fine particulate matter, while virtually decimating and ejecting all the massive structure is not possible from a collapse due to fire.

While you are correct that traditionally controlled demolitions are just that - controlled - why do you ignore the classic example of WTC 7, which folded neatly and symmetrically into itself? The twin towers were obviously not downed in a controlled manner, but this does not mean they did not contain many more times the explosives needed to create what we saw (a mushroom cloud of debris). Logic...

Now, how in the world can you say that "there was no molten metal, except aluminum"?? Not only have there been many reports of molten steel by firefighters and observers at the scene but there are tons of pictures and videos of previously molten metal, fused together and contorted into all kinds of shapes impossible without extremely high heat.

As far as thermite goes, it is not an easily produced substance in natural catastrophes or collapsing buildings. Where did you get this idea? Do you have a source? There are in fact videos of a thermite reaction which show tons of molten steel (not aluminum, as aluminum when melted does not appear bright orange yellow, just look it up if you are skeptical).

And lastly, you think a black ops project can only be concealed when confined to 100 people? Who are you trying to kid? Ever hear of the Manhattan project? How about the holocaust? True these things are eventually revealed, and with time the truth about 911 will all be considered public knowledge.

i could go on forever, but i won't. just want to say this: they have larry silverstein on tape on a tv program saying that they "pulled" building 7. pulled, of course, is a term for controlled demolition. interesting, considering other buildings that he DIDN't own (and therefre didn't have an insurance policy on) were more heavily damaged and yet were in no danger at all of collapsing. how long does it take to set up a demolition like that? a day? a week?

Originally Posted by memeticverb

And lastly, you think a black ops project can only be concealed when confined to 100 people? Who are you trying to kid? Ever hear of the Manhattan project? How about the holocaust? True these things are eventually revealed, and with time the truth about 911 will all be considered public knowledge.
[/b]

don't forget the nazi's burning of the reichstag in order to instill fear, suspend civil liberties, and consolidate power! (sound familiar?)...

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Now, how in the world can you say that "there was no molten metal, except aluminum"?? Not only have there been many reports of molten steel by firefighters and observers at the scene but there are tons of pictures and videos of previously molten metal, fused together and contorted into all kinds of shapes impossible without extremely high heat.
[/b]

You seem to be ignorant of the definition of "molten". Molten: "reduced to liquid form by heating".
The steel wasn't liquid in those pictures, it was only red-hot--a phenomenon that requires MUCH lower temperatures.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

As far as thermite goes, it is not an easily produced substance in natural catastrophes or collapsing buildings. Where did you get this idea? Do you have a source?[/b]

Sure. From Wiki: "A thermite reaction is a type of aluminothermic reaction in which aluminium metal is oxidized by the oxide of another metal, most commonly iron oxide."
Aluminum, Iron Oxide. It's ridiculously simple. I've made it in my backyard a couple of times--all you need to do is grind some rust down to a powder, then break open an Etch-A-Sketch and mix them at the right proportion.
Now, what are these "chemical traces" you're talking about? Because like I said, the products of a thermite reaction are only molten iron (which we have no evidence of any melted iron, only heated) and aluminum oxide. Both are prevalent already in modern buildings.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

videos of a thermite reaction which show tons of molten steel (not aluminum, as aluminum when melted does not appear bright orange yellow, just look it up if you are skeptical).[/b]

One, that looks more like sparks and embers than molten steel to me--have you ever SEEN a thermite reaction? They produce TORRENTS of liquid iron. Two, get your terminology right. Thermite doesn't produce molten steel. It produces molten iron. It can melt the steel indirectly, but it doesn't produce molten steel in the quantities it produces molten iron. Third, if they HAD used thermite to cut the steel supports, they'd be using it INSIDE the building, on the supports, not on the edge near a window. Fourth, in order for this to be true, they'd have to either plan the exact floor the airplane struck, then plant the thermite there, then crash the plane and have it all work out all hunky-dory. Which, since they had amateur pilots at best, would not be easy. Or, they could wait until AFTER the planes struck to plant the thermite, which is simply impossible.
What are you suggesting?

Originally Posted by memeticverb

And lastly, you think a black ops project can only be concealed when confined to 100 people? Who are you trying to kid? Ever hear of the Manhattan project? How about the holocaust? True these things are eventually revealed, and with time the truth about 911 will all be considered public knowledge.[/b]

For your info, Manhattan Project was only kept black by moving the scientists working on it to a remote desert so they COULDN'T tell anybody. With the advent of cell phones, it would be nearly impossible to pull the same manner of cover again.
In the case of the holocaust, that wasn't kept secret at all. At least not well. The Jews most certainly had it figured out right away, and the rest of the world was only clueless because it wasn't paying attention.

Originally Posted by Tsen

In the case of the holocaust, that wasn't kept secret at all. At least not well. The Jews most certainly had it figured out right away, and the rest of the world was only clueless because it wasn't paying attention.[/b]

Ehhh, careful. This is a highly controversial statement. Firstly, when you're talking about the holocaust with respect to what ordinary people knew at the time, the mere USE of the word "holocaust" creates an inference in the modern, RETROSPECTIVE mind that any knowledge or indications of knowledge of any part of what is now known as the "Holocaust", infers a fiuller knowledge of the full extent of the holocaust.

In short, there is certainly evidence that contemporary Jews, Germans, and people in the wider world had some measure of understanding that some manner of racial segregation and perhaps persecution was going on at the time, that's a far cry from saying that they "Knew about the Holocaust".

Yeah, I see your point.

Originally Posted by Tsen

One, that looks more like sparks and embers than molten steel to me--have you ever SEEN a thermite reaction? They produce TORRENTS of liquid iron. Two, get your terminology right. Thermite doesn't produce molten steel. It produces molten iron. It can melt the steel indirectly, but it doesn't produce molten steel in the quantities it produces molten iron. Third, if they HAD used thermite to cut the steel supports, they'd be using it INSIDE the building, on the supports, not on the edge near a window.[/b]

Well thanks for ignoring WTC Building 7 completely, which could not look more like a controlled demolition.

But as for the thermite issue, we would do well to listen to an expert. You are right that the byproduct of a thermite reaction is iron as professor Jones shows us, but what he also makes clear is that its easy to calculate the amount and nature of the molten substance flowing out of the tower, which in fact collapses at the corner column where we see the reaction.

Steven Jones, PhD. explains how thermite was used in the twin towers.

I would like to know what most people think upon hearing this testimony by a highly credentialed professor who has done actual experiments, published papers on the issue (which have not been refuted), and corroborated his findings with many other highly credentialed physics professors - see Dr. Judy Wood, and Dr. Jeff King.

Duh his papers haven't been refuted--they weren't trying to prove anything. The most he's ever done in his papers is say that he wants more research done and wants more relevant data released by the government so that we can make an informed and scientific probe into the real cause of the collapse.

Just want to add that in regard to the beams, there is one that weighed some 600,000 pounds (imagine that now) and it was blown 350 feet away and was implanted deep inside a building. Think about this for a minute. Did it fall there? No. This is fact. What is guessed from this fact is something else.

Just a thought I came across, regarding motivation for a 9/11 conspiracy (and I'm no historian, so someone let me know if I'm out of line):

Are we (the US) not the same force that dropped Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - killing an estimated 210,000 people between the combined, initial blasts and their associated effects?
Is there any argument that the overwhelming majority of those killed were civilians?
Was this not done in the name of (perceived) peace? To put an end to the war (which is still debated today)?

What part of that scenario would make someone completely disregard the US governement as ethically capable of killing 3000 civilians as a pretext for a war in the Middle East that (I'm sure they believed) could be much more easily won, offers a democratic, possibly relatively peaceful future in one of the most volatile regions in the world and virtually gives us residential access to the most coveted natural resource there is?

Is it because the attack was on our own soil?
Is it because the civilians killed were Americans?

Do you really think that matters to people who's job it is to look at the "Bigger Picture?" (besides as a campaign platform)
Do you think the US feels the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had less of a right to live than the Americans killed on 9/11? If you don't think it, then it's conceivable that civilians on our own soil are just as expendable, given a "greater good." If you do think it, then you imply recognition of a government mindset that proves my point just as well.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Just a thought I came across, regarding motivation for a 9/11 conspiracy (and I'm no historian, so someone let me know if I'm out of line):

Are we (the US) not the same force that dropped Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - killing an estimated 210,000 people between the combined, initial blasts and their associated effects?
Is there any argument that the overwhelming majority of those killed were civilians?
Was this not done in the name of (perceived) peace? To put an end to the war (which is still debated today)?

What part of that scenario would make someone completely disregard the US governement as ethically capable of killing 3000 civilians as a pretext for a war in the Middle East that (I'm sure they believed) could be much more easily won, offers a democratic, possibly relatively peaceful future in one of the most volatile regions in the world and virtually gives us residential access to the most coveted natural resource there is?

Is it because the attack was on our own soil?
Is it because the civilians killed were Americans?

Do you really think that matters to people who's job it is to look at the "Bigger Picture?" (besides as a campaign platform)
Do you think the US feels the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had less of a right to live than the Americans killed on 9/11? If you don't think it, then it's conceivable that civilians on our own soil are just as expendable, given a "greater good." If you do think it, then you imply recognition of a government mindset that proves my point just as well.
[/b]

Maybe it is the case that these neo-con/shadow government types are really only interested in spreading democracy, and they knew people who not support unmercifully spreading democracy by waging war, so they "sacrificed" a few thousand citizens (less than 10% of the number that die every year in car accidents) to have an excuse to spread American imperialism, i mean democracy, into the most oil rich parts of the world.

Seriously though, the people who still believe the government about 911 probably think preemptive war in general is a good thing, whether in Iraq or Japan. Of course, in Japan, civilians were the main target - yes a true low for the American empire. Even 911 does not compare in my mind, if it was in fact the government that orchestrated that event (which at this point is proven to some degree given the number of whistleblowers who have said as much, i.e. Sybil Edmonds.)

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Maybe it is the case that these neo-con/shadow government types are really only interested in spreading democracy, and they knew people who not support unmercifully spreading democracy by waging war, so they "sacrificed" a few thousand citizens (less than 10% of the number that die every year in car accidents) to have an excuse to spread American imperialism, i mean democracy, into the most oil rich parts of the world.

Seriously though, the people who still believe the government about 911 probably think preemptive war in general is a good thing, whether in Iraq or Japan. Of course, in Japan, civilians were the main target - yes a true low for the American empire. Even 911 does not compare in my mind, if it was in fact the government that orchestrated that event (which at this point is proven to some degree given the number of whistleblowers who have said as much, i.e. Sybil Edmonds.)
[/b]

Nuking of Japan, result: the end of World War II, a war where 52 million people had died, moslty civilians (the vast majority of whom were not killed by Americans)

9/11, result: mindless mass civilian killing that backfired many fold on those who did it

I already told you that the war in Iraq is about sand. It has something to do with what the queers are doing to the soil.