The 9/11 Conspiracy - Page 9 - Fandom Forums
Fandom Forums



Go Back   Fandom Forums > Indepth Interests > Debates Section > Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy Theories Talk about your theories here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-15-2009, 08:04 PM   #121
Miburo
Deos Fortioribus Adesse
 
Miburo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,679 Times in 5,440 Posts
Miburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimonCP View Post
If you can't see the way that a magician performs his magic trick, but you can see discrepancies, and thus, evidence that it is a trick, does that mean the magic trick is real? Of course not.
Actually, yeah, the magic trick is real. Magic tricks are, by definition, tricks. A magician isn't going to say his magic tricks aren't tricks without looking stupid.

Also, you're still not getting this logic thing (Or analogies...). If a magician says he's preforming actual wizard magic then he has to PROVE he's doing that since he made that claim. You're claiming that the government lied about what happened to the passengers on those flights. You have to prove that. The burden of proof is on you if you're going to make claims. To do so, you have to supply proof that supports your claim, your conclusion. Such proof would be that the passengers are still alive, that they were dropped off somewhere, etc. Otherwise you cannot make that claim. Simple logic. It's not really that hard to understand.
Quote:
The media/government has presented a story, and by disputing it with evidence/questions, I am not required to fill in the blanks that they left me with.
You are required to prove your claims. Do it, or don't make claims you cannot support with actual evidence.

Quote:
If I was a relative of one of the passengers, I'd demand that the government/media tell me the truth. After all, if the airplane story is a lie, then it's they who will hold the answers, not the conspiracy theorists. The conspiracy theorists weren't in attendance when this was being planned.
"If" being the keyword there. The conspiracy theorist in this situation is you. And you're claiming that the government lied about what happened to the passengers. You're. Claiming. _______. You have to prove it now.


Quote:
If I can provide evidence that the damage is clearly inconsistent with an airplane crash, then that is evidence that there wasn't an airplane crash. The simple fact is that airplanes don't vanish when crashing into fields or buildings. Airplanes don't crash while containing thousands of gallons of jet fuel and leave only a minor amount of smoke/heat damage. A huge tail section cannot hit a wall at 530 mph on it's sharp end and leave no mark. A lightweight aluminum plane cannot fly through a steel/concrete building as if it is flying through air. A Boeing 767-200 cannot fly at over 500 mph while at low altitude.
If I say I live in the woods and eat raw fish then that is evidence that I'm a bear. That doesn't support the conclusion that I actually am a bear though. I explained it to you pretty well. I don't see what you're not understanding about this, really.
Quote:
These impossibilities and others tear the "Airplane Story" that we've been told to shreds.
No they don't.

Quote:
Have you ever been to an airport? Commercial airplanes are extremely loud, even when they're not flying that fast. They are also very massive. The eyewitnesses on the ground report hearing no sounds of an airplane approach and not seeing anything, even though they were looking up at the Towers. This would be impossible, had a commercial jetliner struck the building while traveling at top speed.
Yeah. I actually lived near an airport half my life. I've also been to a city. I've also met people who were mistaken about stuff, especially when they're scared and in a state of confusion. I also know how logic works, which is why I'm not making claims I can't back up or buying into silly conspiracy theories.

Quote:
Furthermore, when massive wide shots showing the Pentagon, the entry hole, and the lawn in front of it show no airplane wreckage, then that is evidence that no jetliner crashed into the building. As said earlier, airplanes do not fly into buildings and 'poof'. This is even more true in the case of the Pennsylvania "crash", which happened in a field! All we had was an empty hole and some smoke/heat damage. Try finding another airplane crash like that (There's plenty of airplanes that have crashed into fields) -- you won't.
Again, that's not evidence of what you claimed. Also, what was the cause then, if there was no airplanes? A missile? Explosives? What purpose would launching a missile or setting off some explosives in a field serve? Was there any missile or explosive debris found in the field that could not have possibly come from a plane? Or is "LOL THERE WAZN'T ENUFF FIRE OR CONTAMINATED WATER, THEREFORE NO PLANE DUUUURR HURR" all you have?
Quote:
At the Pentagon:
-No damage above the upper floors where the 44ft tail section would have hit at 530 mph.
-No wreckage visible in the wide shots of the lawn.
-No disturbance to the grass on the lawn in front of the Pentagon.
-No serious fire damage on the inside of the first ring.
-An exit hole three rings down that could not have been caused by the plane.
-The entry hole is a square, despite the fact that the nose/fuselage is circular.

In this case, concluding that there was no plane would be quite reasonable.
I post an example of a logical fallacy, and you mimic the fallacy and use it as an argument? Seriously. Wow.
Quote:
The photographs surely weren't wrong -- the camera has no bias or confusion. Unless they were fake, then the grass around the crater was unburnt, dirt inside the crater was unburnt, and there was a surprisingly small amount of smoke/heat damage in the crater, despite the fact that it was a jetliner with thousands of gallons of fuel still in it, even though small planes have crashed and caused much more heat/smoke damage.
Ever think the interpretations of the photography might possibly be wrong? Or is that completely outside the realm of possibilities?
Quote:
So, then we have the photographer who said he didn't smell any jet fuel -- Surely, someone who has made a statement like that has smelled jet fuel before. And he didn't smell it there. That was his statement. Had he smelled it, he wouldn't have said that he didn't.
Well photographers definitely know their shit when it comes to the smell of commercial jet fuel, and are flawless and completely immune to error in general. So you have a point there, I guess....

Quote:
We are left with the EPA -- they conducted tests and found that there was absolutely no groundwater contamination. I seriously doubt that they missed gallons of jet fuel contaminants in the ground.
Yes, because groundWATER and the ground are the same thing and all.

Quote:
Susan McElwain saw a small white aircraft that had no wings. Her description matches that of an advanced drone aircraft.
That settles it, if Susn McElwain didn't see a plane then there definitely wasn't a plane.

Quote:
The debunking, "September Clues -- Busted" (Made by a former voiceover the British government's BBC scare/propaganda network), has been heavily debunked on all issues. Here's an old debunking of it that I wrote:
Actually, the first link was this:http://truthaction.org/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf

Umm. Feel free to debunk the entire thing. Remember to address all points. Because, as you know, not addressing all points raised is called strawman tactics.

Also, did that video you "debunked" really only have that small amount of points in it? Or did you miss some?

Quote:
So, yes, the debunking is BS. Check out the movie here:
http://septemberclues.info/
Alright. Debunk the pdf first though. I don't want to be wasting my time on junk videos.



Quote:
It was the government that made the "Airplane" claim in the first place. I'm using the available evidence to dispute that claim.
I'm not debating the government. I'm debating with you. And you're making claims and conclusions. I'm just asking you to provide proof for them, since that is how one does things logically.

Quote:
It's not my job. I can't explain how a magician does her/his magic tricks, but I know they aren't real and, if I am observant, I can see discrepancies.
If I say magic tricks are tricks I can provide logical proof to back that claim. It's easy. Tricks are tricks. A=A. So your analogy sucks. Now that we've established that, back up your claims logically or don't make them.
Miburo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post:
Azumi (10-21-2009), Mal (10-15-2009)


Old 10-15-2009, 08:08 PM   #122
Miburo
Deos Fortioribus Adesse
 
Miburo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,679 Times in 5,440 Posts
Miburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

@Phone call shit-Actually, OFFICIALLY, most of the calls were made from the on-board phones:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Un...ines_Flight_93

I didn't check them all, but the I glanced through some of the names listed as using cell phones in your post and saw that they did indeed use the on-board phones to make those calls.

Here's an article that addresses one of the phone call controversies about Honor Elizabeth Wainio here:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Ho...izabeth_Wainio
Miburo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post:
Mal (10-15-2009), zer0systm (10-15-2009)
Old 10-15-2009, 09:20 PM   #123
SimonCP
The Truthseeker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 25
Thanks: 2
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
SimonCP is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Quote:
@Phone call shit-Actually, OFFICIALLY, most of the calls were made from the on-board phones:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Un...ines_Flight_93
This is, according to alleged airfone records released after-the-fact. As documented above, the mainstream media gave us the "cell phone" story. So, now we have two contradictory official lines.

Quote:
Here's an article that addresses one of the phone call controversies about Honor Elizabeth Wainio here:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Ho...izabeth_Wainio
I am aware that another news article and the alleged airfone records state that Wainio used an on-board phone. The problem is that Newsweek was using a primary source (Wainio's stepmother) when stating that the call came from a cellphone. The FBI is also using that same primary source. Thus, we have a problem.

Quote:
Also, you're still not getting this logic thing (Or analogies...). If a magician says he's preforming actual wizard magic then he has to PROVE he's doing that since he made that claim. You're claiming that the government lied about what happened to the passengers on those flights. You have to prove that. The burden of proof is on you if you're going to make claims. To do so, you have to supply proof that supports your claim, your conclusion. Such proof would be that the passengers are still alive, that they were dropped off somewhere, etc. Otherwise you cannot make that claim. Simple logic. It's not really that hard to understand.
If I prove that the "Airplane Story" is impossible, then the "passengers" ball is thrown to the government.

Quote:
You are required to prove your claims. Do it, or don't make claims you cannot support with actual evidence.
I've made no claims about the passengers -- I've made the claim that the airplane stories were fake. If I can prove that, then the issue of the passengers is up to them, since they told the airplane story in the first place.

Quote:
"If" being the keyword there. The conspiracy theorist in this situation is you. And you're claiming that the government lied about what happened to the passengers. You're. Claiming. _______. You have to prove it now.
Proving that the airplane crashes were faked already proves that the government lied about what happened to the passengers.

Quote:
If I say I live in the woods and eat raw fish then that is evidence that I'm a bear. That doesn't support the conclusion that I actually am a bear though. I explained it to you pretty well. I don't see what you're not understanding about this, really.
Apples and oranges. You're talking about proving A to be B. I'm talking about proving that what we are told is "C" isn't really "C". If the evidence flies in the face of an airplane crash, then there wasn't an airplane crash.

Quote:
Yeah. I actually lived near an airport half my life. I've also been to a city. I've also met people who were mistaken about stuff, especially when they're scared and in a state of confusion. I also know how logic works, which is why I'm not making claims I can't back up or buying into silly conspiracy theories.
Witness after witness did not hear/see the airplane, despite the fact that they were looking up at the building and in the immediate area. Being scared/confused doesn't impede your vision or your ability to hear.

Quote:
Again, that's not evidence of what you claimed. Also, what was the cause then, if there was no airplanes? A missile? Explosives? What purpose would launching a missile or setting off some explosives in a field serve? Was there any missile or explosive debris found in the field that could not have possibly come from a plane? Or is "LOL THERE WAZN'T ENUFF FIRE OR CONTAMINATED WATER, THEREFORE NO PLANE DUUUURR HURR" all you have?
The indisputable fact that airplanes don't vanish upon impact, and the fact that they contain jet fuel is enough to throw the airplane story into question.

Quote:
I post an example of a logical fallacy, and you mimic the fallacy and use it as an argument? Seriously. Wow.
Would it be a logical fallacy if I threw a rock through a store owner's window, and he dismissed the possibility that a plane had hit his shop because the damage wasn't severe enough?

Quote:
Ever think the interpretations of the photography might possibly be wrong? Or is that completely outside the realm of possibilities?
It is, because I am interpreting nothing. All of this can be clearly observed.

Quote:
Well photographers definitely know their shit when it comes to the smell of commercial jet fuel, and are flawless and completely immune to error in general. So you have a point there, I guess....
What does this have to do with them being a photographer? The fact that they say they didn't smell jet fuel indicates that they know the smell. Also, the simple fact is that if they had smelled kerosene, they wouldn't have said they didn't. Saying you didn't smell something is pretty definitive.

Quote:
Yes, because groundWATER and the ground are the same thing and all.
If there had been jet fuel all over the ground, the EPA tests surely would have come up with something.

Quote:
That settles it, if Susn McElwain didn't see a plane then there definitely wasn't a plane.
Unless she is lying, then no, there was no Boeing 757. She is too positive and her description is too detailed -- she is certainly not making a mistake. Had she seen a Boeing 757, these details would have no place in her account.

Quote:
Also, did that video you "debunked" really only have that small amount of points in it? Or did you miss some?
I tackled all of the video's points -- it just didn't address all of September Clues. The PDF did, however, so I'm going to look it over. I noticed the foreword was by Anthony Lawson (Maker of September Clues Busted), however -- that's a bad sign. :>
__________________




It's Gon Rain!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7UBlZcZSE0

Truth about 9/11
The attacks were an 'inside job': http://killtown.911review.org/
The TV footage is fake: http://www.septemberclues.info/
The Military used hi-tech weapons to destroy the Towers: http://drjudywood.com/
SimonCP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 10:17 PM   #124
Miburo
Deos Fortioribus Adesse
 
Miburo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,679 Times in 5,440 Posts
Miburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimonCP View Post
This is, according to alleged airfone records released after-the-fact. As documented above, the mainstream media gave us the "cell phone" story. So, now we have two contradictory official lines.
Okay. Good. So, based on that information you came to the conclusion that that calls made were IMPOSSIBLE and use that conclusion to support the claim that the plane wrecks were faked?

And you don't think there are any logical fallacies in your argument? Wow. Seriously, read up on non sequiturs. Holy shit.

Quote:
I am aware that another news article and the alleged airfone records state that Wainio used an on-board phone. The problem is that Newsweek was using a primary source (Wainio's stepmother) when stating that the call came from a cellphone. The FBI is also using that same primary source. Thus, we have a problem.
Not really. One source is from a woman who had talked to her stepdaughter before her death, where it's entirely possible that she mistakenly thought or said the call came from a cell phone; and the other is a phone record of calls made to the woman.

And like I said, your premises don't support your conclusion here.
Quote:
If I prove that the "Airplane Story" is impossible, then the "passengers" ball is thrown to the government.
You haven't done that either.
Quote:
I've made no claims about the passengers -- I've made the claim that the airplane stories were fake. If I can prove that, then the issue of the passengers is up to them, since they told the airplane story in the first place.
You said that the government lied in regards to what happened to the passengers. I can quote exactly where you said they were lying, and it was in response in regards to the passengers. That's a claim about what happened to them. You have to prove your claims.

Quote:
Apples and oranges. You're talking about proving A to be B. I'm talking about proving that what we are told is "C" isn't really "C". If the evidence flies in the face of an airplane crash, then there wasn't an airplane crash.
What the fuck are you talking about? You're using premises that don't directly support you conclusions and claims. My analogy is perfectly spot-on. You are saying A and B=Not plane crashes. "Not plane crashes" is your conclusion. That "not" doesn't mean anything in this particular scenario.

But if it makes you happy, I eat raw fish and live in the woods. Therefore I'm not a human. Same thing. Happy? Still a non sequitur. Your logic still sucks.


Quote:
Witness after witness did not hear/see the airplane, despite the fact that they were looking up at the building and in the immediate area. Being scared/confused doesn't impede your vision or your ability to hear.
Are there zero witnesses claiming to have heard or seen a plane? Or are you just ignoring them like you did with the on-board phone thing?

Quote:
The indisputable fact that airplanes don't vanish upon impact, and the fact that they contain jet fuel is enough to throw the airplane story into question.
Did anyone claim that the planes did vanish upon impact? Now this is a strawman argument on your part. You're claiming that they vanished, therefore there was no planes since planes don't vanish. I don't think anyone thinks they did vanish. They think they crashed into fucking buildings. It's entirely possible you're just mistaken about them vanishing.

Also, "throwing it into question" doesn't prove your claims any.

Quote:
Would it be a logical fallacy if I threw a rock through a store owner's window, and he dismissed the possibility that a plane had hit his shop because the damage wasn't severe enough?
Actually, technically yeah. It would be a non sequitur since his premise doesn't support his conclusion. He's not wrong, of course. But his logic is. If he would say it wasn't a plane because it was a brick then he'd be good to go. A =/= B. That's logically sound.

Which is irrelevant, because you're not saying "I am being skeptical and nothing more" here. You're making your own claims. You're not saying "This doesn't make any sense to me." You're saying "There was no planes, the government lied about what happened to the passengers." So you have to logically prove those claims. Which you have yet to do.

Quote:
It is, because I am interpreting nothing. All of this can be clearly observed.
I looked at a few pictures and can see chunks of plane and shit. And you've already been caught red-handed with not taking into account all information with the phone thing. Before I brought up the on-board phone records you were saying that they were all cell-phone calls and using that as "proof" that they were fake. You didn't even take the on-board phones into consideration.
Quote:
What does this have to do with them being a photographer? The fact that they say they didn't smell jet fuel indicates that they know the smell. Also, the simple fact is that if they had smelled kerosene, they wouldn't have said they didn't. Saying you didn't smell something is pretty definitive.
Again, non sequitur. If I say I didn't smell wild onions in my backyard when I went out there a bit ago that just means I didn't personally smell any wild onions. You cannot conclude that I know what wild onions smell like based on that. You cannot conclude that there are no wild onions out there. You can only conclude that I personally didn't smell them. Again, lrn2logic.
Quote:
If there had been jet fuel all over the ground, the EPA tests surely would have come up with something.
If they were testing groundwater like you said multiple times? No groundwater contamination doesn't mean there wasn't any jet fuel.
Quote:
Unless she is lying, then no, there was no Boeing 757. She is too positive and her description is too detailed -- she is certainly not making a mistake. Had she seen a Boeing 757, these details would have no place in her account.
Yeah, that's the logical conclusion. She didn't see it, so it must not have existed. Do I really have to explain how this, like almost every other argument of yours, is a non sequitur too? Really? Really?! Come on.

Quote:
I tackled all of the video's points -- it just didn't address all of September Clues. The PDF did, however, so I'm going to look it over. I noticed the foreword was by Anthony Lawson (Maker of September Clues Busted), however -- that's a bad sign. :>
Cool. Go for it.
Miburo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post:
Azumi (10-21-2009), zer0systm (10-16-2009)
Old 10-16-2009, 01:11 AM   #125
Mal
Scotch
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 12,725
Thanked 10,818 Times in 3,844 Posts
Mal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Yo Simon Who Does Not Have CP. Prove that at least one of these people did not die as a result of the attacks. That is all you have to prove, just one.
Mal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mal For This Useful Post:
Miburo (10-16-2009), zer0systm (10-16-2009)
Old 10-20-2009, 12:20 PM   #126
Gansta_Ninja
Genin
 
Gansta_Ninja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 53
Thanks: 2
Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
Gansta_Ninja is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

There's a conspiracy here and it's towering! I support the following theories:

1.) The Color of Flames

If you look closely, when the airplane hit the tower it created a fire ball of Red-Orange flames. The same type of flame can been seen burning till the towers collapsed. Under open and uncontrolled environment it would be impossible for any flames to reach the melting point of steel. It requires at least a propane blowtorch to cut the WTC steel frames.

The controlled flames from the blowtourch are normally light blue in color. A clear indication of its immense heat of 1,200-1,700 degrees celsius. Strong enough to cut and melt steel. However, that we saw at WTC are just Red-Orange flames, it was not substantial to cause the structural failure.

2.) Use of Demolition charges

Once again, it makes me wonder. Why the whole building including the 14 inch thick steel core reduced into rubble. The Plane struck the higher floor of the building. Even if there was a structural failure above, the remaining layers would withstands the load. What force brought the tower down in a merely free fall of 10 seconds.

By the looks of it, all the supports beams and frames have given way at the same time. Any structural engineering will tell you that the lower floors would at least give some resistance, but in this case we don't see any resistance from the undamaged floors. Expert says if your are at top of the WTC and you throw a ball below. It will reach the grown at free fall time of 9-10 seconds. Strange isn't it?

The videos itself hold the evidence we need. You will see the outer layers of the building blown to bits, also metal beams flew several meters from WTC. What force made all these? By the way, I suggest everyone to watch some videos of controlled demolition and compare it to WTC.

I will appreciate your comments.
__________________
Gansta_Ninja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2009, 04:47 PM   #127
Miburo
Deos Fortioribus Adesse
 
Miburo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,679 Times in 5,440 Posts
Miburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja View Post
1.) The Color of Flames

If you look closely, when the airplane hit the tower it created a fire ball of Red-Orange flames. The same type of flame can been seen burning till the towers collapsed. Under open and uncontrolled environment it would be impossible for any flames to reach the melting point of steel. It requires at least a propane blowtorch to cut the WTC steel frames.

The controlled flames from the blowtourch are normally light blue in color. A clear indication of its immense heat of 1,200-1,700 degrees celsius. Strong enough to cut and melt steel. However, that we saw at WTC are just Red-Orange flames, it was not substantial to cause the structural failure.
You argument is flawed. You argument is that the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel, therefore it would be impossible for that to cause structural failure. Melting steel and structural failure are two different things.

Quote:
2.) Use of Demolition charges

Once again, it makes me wonder. Why the whole building including the 14 inch thick steel core reduced into rubble. The Plane struck the higher floor of the building. Even if there was a structural failure above, the remaining layers would withstands the load. What force brought the tower down in a merely free fall of 10 seconds.

By the looks of it, all the supports beams and frames have given way at the same time. Any structural engineering will tell you that the lower floors would at least give some resistance, but in this case we don't see any resistance from the undamaged floors. Expert says if your are at top of the WTC and you throw a ball below. It will reach the grown at free fall time of 9-10 seconds. Strange isn't it?

The videos itself hold the evidence we need. You will see the outer layers of the building blown to bits, also metal beams flew several meters from WTC. What force made all these? By the way, I suggest everyone to watch some videos of controlled demolition and compare it to WTC.
Wouldn't there be evidence of this found in the debris? Pretty sure there would be. Actual evidence would be helpful in making your argument more than just semi-uneducated speculation.
Miburo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post:
Mal (10-20-2009)
Old 10-20-2009, 06:02 PM   #128
mewmew
Fodder-nin
 
mewmew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Manila
Posts: 426
Thanks: 154
Thanked 196 Times in 118 Posts
mewmew is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Simon, how about PROVE that there were no other witnesses other than those you mentioned. If you can't, PROVE that your witnesses "subjective" experiences are more CORRECT than majority of the other witnesses. Miburo has proven so far that you're supposedly "objective" evidences doesn't stand logically.
__________________
mewmew is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mewmew For This Useful Post:
Mal (10-20-2009), Miburo (10-20-2009)
Old 10-20-2009, 07:06 PM   #129
Mal
Scotch
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 12,725
Thanked 10,818 Times in 3,844 Posts
Mal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

On top of Miburo's above TRUTH:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja View Post
There's a conspiracy here and it's towering! I support the following dumb-ass theories:

1.) The Color of Flames

If you look closely, when the airplane hit the tower it created a fire ball of Red-Orange flames. The same type of flame can been seen burning till the towers collapsed. Under open and uncontrolled environment it would be impossible for any flames to reach the melting point of steel. It requires at least a propane blowtorch to cut the WTC steel frames.
Flawed2THEMAX, yo. The existence of one degree of flames does not mean no other flames existed, as will be explained in this counter example:
If I cannot see something, it does not exist.
I cannot see air.
Therefore, air does not exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja View Post
2.) Use of Demolition charges

Once again, it makes me wonder. Why the whole building including the 14 inch thick steel core reduced into rubble. The Plane struck the higher floor of the building. Even if there was a structural failure above, the remaining layers would withstands the load. What force brought the tower down in a merely free fall of 10 seconds.
See below to understand why claiming the towers fell in 10 seconds is stupid.
The lower floors did put up some resistance, but each floor weighed ~4,090,909kg, without taking into account the contents of the buildings. Each additional floor that collapsed added another 4M kg. Merely half way down the tower there would be almost 220,000,000kg coming down. Each floor's maximum load was ~2,000,000kg (100lbs/sqft, 208ftx208ft), so even one floor collapsing would have been enough. However, the collapse started ~15 floors down, dropping ~ 60,000,000kg on the next floor. It shouldn't be surprising that a floor designed to support 2,000,000kg collapsed almost instantly under 60,000,000kg.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja View Post
By the looks of it, all the supports beams and frames have given way at the same time. Any structural engineering will tell you that the lower floors would at least give some resistance, but in this case we don't see any resistance from the undamaged floors. Expert says if your are at top of the WTC and you throw a ball below. It will reach the grown at free fall time of 9-10 seconds. Strange isn't it?
What's strange is that people believe the towers collapsed in 10 seconds. Most counters are stopped just after the 10 second mark, which is when the outer columns hit the ground. These same outer columns and other large debris can earlier be seen (in free fall) falling much faster than the rest of the building. Another 40 stories of the building is still standing behind the debris cloud.

The building, in free fall, would collapse in:

Quote:
t = (2d/a)^1/2
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2
t = 9.23s
And it's speed at this point would be approximately:

Quote:
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
Just one second later and the building would have fallen almost 1/4 of it's total height. The actual time of the collapse is closer to 13 seconds. Had the the towers been in free fall for this duration of time, they would have fallen 150% farther than they actually did.
They collapsed at significantly less than free fall speeds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja View Post
The videos itself hold the evidence we need. You will see the outer layers of the building blown to bits, also metal beams flew several meters from WTC. What force made all these? By the way, I suggest everyone to watch some videos of controlled demolition and compare it to WTC.
Funny you should bring up videos of controlled demolitions. When did you last see a video of a controlled demolition that blew apart the "outer layers" and sent metal beams flying several meters away?

Quote:
“It [the J.L. Hudson building] took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives…” James Santoro – Controlled Demolition Incorporated"
via History.com
24 days. Each tower is ~3 times the size of the J.L. Hudson. If these buildings were to be filled with explosives, and we assume the crews were equally competent, it would have taken over 430 people to do in the 5 days claimed by Loose change. And that is even without the worry of secrecy, which would have greatly increased the time required.
Mal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Mal For This Useful Post:
Azumi (10-21-2009), mewmew (10-20-2009), Miburo (10-20-2009)
Old 10-20-2009, 10:17 PM   #130
mewmew
Fodder-nin
 
mewmew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Manila
Posts: 426
Thanks: 154
Thanked 196 Times in 118 Posts
mewmew is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Quote:
24 days. Each tower is ~3 times the size of the J.L. Hudson. If these buildings were to be filled with explosives, and we assume the crews were equally competent, it would have taken over 430 people to do in the 5 days claimed by Loose change. And that is even without the worry of secrecy, which would have greatly increased the time required.
Gangsta ninja does think like a ninja. lol. if they really did it in 5 days, United States of America dedicated an entire department's worth of manpower. That will also include all security, some management, maintenance and people who work at the building in the conspiracy. If not, these people were probably equipped with futuristic alien stealth suits so that no one in that very crowded, very busy, well guarded workplace would notice them bringing in and rigging the entire building with "super hitech" explosives. Funny People indeed!
__________________

Last edited by mewmew; 10-20-2009 at 10:22 PM.
mewmew is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mewmew For This Useful Post:
Mal (10-20-2009), Miburo (10-21-2009)
Old 10-21-2009, 01:46 PM   #131
Gansta_Ninja
Genin
 
Gansta_Ninja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 53
Thanks: 2
Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
Gansta_Ninja is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miburo View Post
You argument is flawed. You argument is that the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel, therefore it would be impossible for that to cause structural failure. Melting steel and structural failure are two different things.
It’s your argument that is flawed; you can't just simply negate my statement without producing any facts . The director of the original investigation (W. GEN CORLEY) revealed that it was the fire that followed the crash brought the two towers down.

As I said earlier, uncontrolled open fires like those of the WTC can’t generate enough heat to melt the steel trusses, frames and beams. Let me cite one very simply example for you; Gas Stove versus Steel Pot. You can cook all day without melting your steel pot even under the intense heat generated from the Gas stove. Where its controlled flame is far greater than those of the WTC.

This is not the first time the world saw a skyscraper inferno. The Madrid Skyscraper fire (Windsor Building), the 32 storey building that burnt for 10 hours. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...fire_2005.html
This was the same level of fire can be seen at the WTC, but the building withstood the 10 hour blazing inferno. So what the hell happened at WTC??

Here’s a question for you, of which I hope you can shed some light.

1.) The North tower was hit first, then why did the South Tower was the first to collapse?





Quote:
Originally Posted by Mal View Post
[COLOR="Lime"]On top of Miburo's above TRUTH:

Flawed2THEMAX, yo. The existence of one degree of flames does not mean no other flames existed, as will be explained in this counter example:
If I cannot see something, it does not exist.
I cannot see air.
Therefore, air does not exist.
Whether you like it or not there are Flame classification, depending on the fuel supplied. Colors of the flames, especially those controlled ones are indications of its heat energy.

Fires are normally use as colloquial terms for the general public to understand. Now, I hate to say this but your “I CANNOT SEE AIR” example is stupid or somehow slightly pathetic. Air itself is a combination of gases, and FYI there many types of gases. Before we go off –topic, I hope you know what is a Carbon Monoxide.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mal View Post
See below to understand why claiming the towers fell in 10 seconds is stupid.
The lower floors did put up some resistance, but each floor weighed ~4,090,909kg, without taking into account the contents of the buildings. Each additional floor that collapsed added another 4M kg. Merely half way down the tower there would be almost 220,000,000kg coming down. Each floor's maximum load was ~2,000,000kg (100lbs/sqft, 208ftx208ft), so even one floor collapsing would have been enough. However, the collapse started ~15 floors down, dropping ~ 60,000,000kg on the next floor. It shouldn't be surprising that a floor designed to support 2,000,000kg collapsed almost instantly under 60,000,000kg.
Your theory only proves that the WTC should be a pancake collapse and not a total obliteration. FYI, the WTC had a structural core from its bedrock foundation to its roof. A 100 percent steel-framed, of which some larger columns measured 54 inches wide.

What happened to them? Even if there were tons of collapsing floors, the steel core will remaining standing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mewmew View Post
Gangsta ninja does think like a ninja. lol. if they really did it in 5 days, United States of America dedicated an entire department's worth of manpower. That will also include all security, some management, maintenance and people who work at the building in the conspiracy. If not, these people were probably equipped with futuristic alien stealth suits so that no one in that very crowded, very busy, well guarded workplace would notice them bringing in and rigging the entire building with "super hitech" explosives. Funny People indeed!
This is a conspiracy to victimize US itself and it involves a lot of powerful people both in and out of the Government sector. As a matter of fact they placed the entire building under full coverage maintenance 2 weeks prior the claimed attack. Surveillance cameras were turned-off during the entire maintenance program.

Later I will share some of photos I gathered.
__________________

Last edited by Gansta_Ninja; 10-21-2009 at 01:49 PM.
Gansta_Ninja is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Gansta_Ninja For This Useful Post:
Azumi (10-21-2009)
Old 10-21-2009, 03:05 PM   #132
Mal
Scotch
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 12,725
Thanked 10,818 Times in 3,844 Posts
Mal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja View Post
It’s your argument that is flawed; you can't just simply negate my statement without producing any facts . The director of the original investigation (W. GEN CORLEY) revealed that it was the fire that followed the crash brought the two towers down.
Miburo did produce facts. or do you think it's impossible for a building to collapse without its support beams melting?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja View Post
1.) The North tower was hit first, then why did the South Tower was the first to collapse?
Oh shit guys! He found us out! Who would have guessed he'd know that, despite all probability, conditions in both towers were 100% identical‽‽‽

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja View Post
As I said earlier, uncontrolled open fires like those of the WTC can’t generate enough heat to melt the steel trusses, frames and beams. Let me cite one very simply example for you; Gas Stove versus Steel Pot. You can cook all day without melting your steel pot even under the intense heat generated from the Gas stove. Where its controlled flame is far greater than those of the WTC.

This is not the first time the world saw a skyscraper inferno. The Madrid Skyscraper fire (Windsor Building), the 32 storey building that burnt for 10 hours. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...fire_2005.html
This was the same level of fire can be seen at the WTC, but the building withstood the 10 hour blazing inferno. So what the hell happened at WTC??
...
Whether you like it or not there are Flame classification, depending on the fuel supplied. Colors of the flames, especially those controlled ones are indications of its heat energy.

Fires are normally use as colloquial terms for the general public to understand. Now, I hate to say this but your “I CANNOT SEE AIR” example is stupid or somehow slightly pathetic. Air itself is a combination of gases, and FYI there many types of gases. Before we go off –topic, I hope you know what is a Carbon Monoxide.
You're obviously incapable of recognizing a quality counter example.
My argument was exactly like yours. "I can't see something, therefore it does not exist." You assue that since only red/orange flames were seen, that no other flames existed. For centuries people only ever saw white swans, so they thought that all swans were white. However, if you go ask Zer0 (my favourite Aussie) what colour swans are, he'll tell you they're sometimes black.
Oh, and no I don't know what "is a carbon monoxide".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja View Post
Your theory only proves that the WTC should be a pancake collapse and not a total obliteration. FYI, the WTC had a structural core from its bedrock foundation to its roof. A 100 percent steel-framed, of which some larger columns measured 54 inches wide.

What happened to them? Even if there were tons of collapsing floors, the steel core will remaining standing.
The total potential energy of WTC1/2 was:

Quote:
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J (average per floor)
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J = 1,139,879,868,600J (total)
1.1 trillion joules of energy is equivalent to 272 tons of TNT, meaning each tower had as much potential energy as a small nuclear warhead, and you want to believe the central columns would have survived that?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja View Post
This is a conspiracy to victimize US itself and it involves a lot of powerful people both in and out of the Government sector. As a matter of fact they placed the entire building under full coverage maintenance 2 weeks prior the claimed attack. Surveillance cameras were turned-off during the entire maintenance program.

Later I will share some of photos I gathered.
First, was it two weeks or five days? Get your "facts" straight.
Second, "a conspiracy to victimize the US?" Surely there must have been easier alternatives than this absurdly complex "plan".
Mal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mal For This Useful Post:
Azumi (10-21-2009), mewmew (10-21-2009), Miburo (10-21-2009), zer0systm (10-22-2009)
Old 10-21-2009, 03:31 PM   #133
mewmew
Fodder-nin
 
mewmew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Manila
Posts: 426
Thanks: 154
Thanked 196 Times in 118 Posts
mewmew is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

dude, the theory fails even before the fire started. You people filtered out evidence in favor of your theory that there are no planes in the first place. about a hundred thousand people suddenly lose credibility to support your theory. is that supposed to be logical presentation of evidence?

also, you haven't even shown any "feasible" evidence that would solve the logistic problem of rigging two towers with lots of explosives within a set "realistic" time frame. it's one thing to make up a plan, but its another thing to execute it in "real life".

with you're way of selective evidence presentation (throw away the parts that doesn't support your theory-kind-of-inference), the photos "you" have selectively gathered hold no credibility against evidence found and assessed by innumerable "real life" professionals. Yours will be credited as pure speculative assumptions from a non-professional, non-first hand witness, observer from a distance. it's easy to find pictures and assess it within your own intellectual capacity by compositing your ideas with a pseudo-expert angle, but its another thing to truly understand evidence from a non-paranoid professional perspective.
__________________
mewmew is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mewmew For This Useful Post:
Azumi (10-21-2009), Mal (10-21-2009), Miburo (10-21-2009)
Old 10-21-2009, 04:14 PM   #134
Miburo
Deos Fortioribus Adesse
 
Miburo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,679 Times in 5,440 Posts
Miburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja View Post
It’s your argument that is flawed; you can't just simply negate my statement without producing any facts . The director of the original investigation (W. GEN CORLEY) revealed that it was the fire that followed the crash brought the two towers down.
I did produce facts. Like the fact that your argument sucks since the premise doesn't support the conclusion. Like Mal said, you never showed that it would be impossible for a building to collapse without having all the steel in the building melt. If you think about it, it's actually a ridiculously stupid thing to even suggest.



Quote:
As I said earlier, uncontrolled open fires like those of the WTC can’t generate enough heat to melt the steel trusses, frames and beams. Let me cite one very simply example for you; Gas Stove versus Steel Pot. You can cook all day without melting your steel pot even under the intense heat generated from the Gas stove. Where its controlled flame is far greater than those of the WTC.
Like I said earlier, it doesn't matter since steel melting =/= structural failure.

Quote:
This is not the first time the world saw a skyscraper inferno. The Madrid Skyscraper fire (Windsor Building), the 32 storey building that burnt for 10 hours. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...fire_2005.html
This was the same level of fire can be seen at the WTC, but the building withstood the 10 hour blazing inferno. So what the hell happened at WTC??
I think that perhaps the differences in building size and structure might have been a factor. And the fact that the Windsor Building wasn't hit by MASSIVE FUCKING PLANES could have played a role as well.

Quote:
Here’s a question for you, of which I hope you can shed some light.

1.) The North tower was hit first, then why did the South Tower was the first to collapse
Seriously? Wow.

Like Mal suggested, it's probably because the damage they suffered wasn't identical. Therefore the conditions weren't identical. Etc. Or it could be proof of a MASSIVE CONSPIRACY LOLOLOLOL...if you topped your pizza with paint chips when you were a kid, of course.
Miburo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post:
Azumi (10-21-2009), Mal (10-21-2009), mewmew (10-21-2009), zer0systm (10-22-2009)
Old 10-21-2009, 08:26 PM   #135
Mal
Scotch
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 12,725
Thanked 10,818 Times in 3,844 Posts
Mal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miburo View Post
I think that perhaps the differences in building size and structure might have been a factor. And the fact that the Windsor Building wasn't hit by MASSIVE FUCKING PLANES could have played a role as well.
Speaking of which, the energy of the planes hitting the buildings would have undoubtedly been converted into a substantial amount of heat, on top of the flames.

Quote:
KE = mv^2
KE = (100,000kg)(200m/s)^2
KE = (100,000)(40,000)
KE = 4,000,000,000J
Despite being a conservative estimate, that's as much energy as a ton of TNT with its entire explosion directed at the buildings.
Mal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mal For This Useful Post:
Azumi (10-21-2009), Miburo (10-22-2009)
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.