9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Over 18 ONLY! For grown-ups. . .

Moderators: Amskeptic, Sluggo

User avatar
Spezialist
Old School!
Posts: 679
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:35 am
Location: Patkiwoema
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Spezialist » Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:04 am

Latest post of the previous page:

I'm glad I listened to Dr Judy Wood, the questions I had regarding the event were answered by her revelations. I'm okay that building pieces falling and turning to dust in plain sight. I'm okay with cars igniting into flames long after all the buildings fell.
I'm okay that firemens boots were catching fire. You know why? Because 14 men survived in the second floor stairwell when if physics are understood as we know them should have been crushed by 108 floors falling above them.
As tragic as that day was, there was miracles happening.
You probably live on stolen land, in a fake country with zero consciousness. All the while perpetually committing genocide against the native people blissfully living a consumerist culture wondering why mass shootings occur.

User avatar
whc03grady
IAC Addict!
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:06 am
Location: Livingston Montana
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by whc03grady » Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:57 pm

Amskeptic wrote: If ever there should be a conflict between my own perceptions and an "official truth", I shall stay firmly on the side of my perceptions.
That's a pretty strong position to take, implying as it does that you take your senses (and more widely perhaps, your reasoning faculties) to be somehow immune to error. The quoted statement is little more than a personal declaration of a refusal to believe that you could ever misperceive anything.

My own perception is that the Sun goes around the Earth. Nothing in my perceptual experience points to anything like the ground I'm standing on spinning at 1000 mph, taking me with it, as it hurtles through space at 18.64 miles per second. The official truth (scare quotes not necessary) however is that it does.
Ludwig--1974 Westfalia, 2.0L (GD035193), Solex 34PDSIT-2/3 carburetors.
Gertie--1971 Squareback, 1600cc with Bosch D-Jetronic fuel injection from a '72 (E brain).
Read about their adventures:
http://www.ludwigandgertie.blogspot.com

User avatar
Spezialist
Old School!
Posts: 679
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:35 am
Location: Patkiwoema
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Spezialist » Thu Jan 05, 2017 12:34 pm

Amskeptic wrote:
Jivermo wrote:9/11 conspiracy? Hell, I'm still back on the grassy knoll.
If ever there should be a conflict between my own perceptions and an "official truth", I shall stay firmly on the side of my perceptions.

As of right now, there is no way I can bridge my understanding of:
Twin Towers
a) steel building construction with a central "tube" of vertical girders around a total of nine elevator shafts collapsing with exquisite symmetry from the inner to the outer
b) film of said buildings collapsing at free-fall speed (you can see the north tower antennae drop first!)

Building 7
a) collapsing like a pancake from debris strikes and simple contents fire after five hours
b) film of the center of the roof dropping first!

Oh well, how 'bout that USC game, huh?
Colin
Did you watch the video?
You probably live on stolen land, in a fake country with zero consciousness. All the while perpetually committing genocide against the native people blissfully living a consumerist culture wondering why mass shootings occur.

User avatar
Spezialist
Old School!
Posts: 679
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:35 am
Location: Patkiwoema
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Spezialist » Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:26 pm

MonoCone wrote:Don't feed the troll. Ignore is your friend.
If I had posted this on a more? Popular website where I know the site owner has less intellectual ability yes it would have been a bonified troll. I could troll that site with derogatory comments about special white under garments and not this topic.
If you had the understanding of my words you would have caught that.
I guess low hanging fruit after all these years, maybe next life.
You probably live on stolen land, in a fake country with zero consciousness. All the while perpetually committing genocide against the native people blissfully living a consumerist culture wondering why mass shootings occur.

Jivermo
IAC Addict!
Posts: 1196
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:57 pm
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Jivermo » Thu Jan 05, 2017 2:21 pm

It's the Westfalians. they are behind it all...from 9-11 to the IMF. Christine Lagarde, the secret lovechild of Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun, has been the head of the Westfalians since April, 2002. In a bizarre scheme, Lagarde had the reverse of the newly designed 20 dollar bill (2003) perverted by having the right side of the White House partially covered by a hairy one eyed toad, that is apparently breaking into a 2nd floor window. Aside from the obvious reference to being "a second story man", a skilled thief, it also signifies the easy access that the Westfalians have to the White House, in their continuing quest for the New World Order. CNN had a special 2 hours program on this, and man, it was enlightening. Probably catch it on youtube.

By the way, Lagarde, who gives her age as 61, is really 75. She has had extensive plastic surgeries since she turned 50, in order to prevent her secret from being revealed. As the Russians entered Berlin, Martin Bormann spirited the young girl away, and a special SS guard escorted them to Kiel, where a waiting U-boat took them to Venezuela. Little is known of her early life, but she surfaced in France, where she began attracting attention for her swimming abilities. Interestingly, Christine, like her hidden father, is a health-conscious vegetarian who rarely drinks alcohol. Now you know.

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Posts: 22211
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:47 am
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Amskeptic » Thu Jan 05, 2017 3:40 pm

whc03grady wrote:
Amskeptic wrote: If ever there should be a conflict between my own perceptions and an "official truth", I shall stay firmly on the side of my perceptions.
That's a pretty strong position to take, implying as it does that you take your senses (and more widely perhaps, your reasoning faculties) to be somehow immune to error. The quoted statement is little more than a personal declaration of a refusal to believe that you could ever misperceive anything.


The next step might be to ask for clarification of my definition of "official truth". The fact that I bracketed it in quotation marks presupposes that there is a potential divergence of views regarding the "official truth" in question. That was to protect me from the hordes of yahoos that would reliably jump on typical rejoinders.

For those who know me in the realm of Volkswagens, you have heard me invite you to diverge from my "official truths" if your personal experience contradicts them. There are one in ten progressive carbs that work adequately, for example. I have never pushed anyone to replace one if they like it.

The next next step might be to ask for clarification of my definition of "perceptions".
I do not accept my immediate sensory perceptions in all cases as they are certainly not immune to error.
Nor do I try to answer anything so complex as 9/11 with just my perceptions or reasoning ability. I had to learn about the melting point of steel, jet fuel burn, mass and inertia of 737s, thermite behavior, local witnesses perceptions, and I have been mulling and asking for over a decade now, and I still do not have fast conclusions or a rational explanation of why any nation's leadership would want something like this to occur.

After sixteen years of mulling and arriving upon perceptions from a multitude of different starting points, and after viewing several videos many times over, and listening to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, I have some perceptions now. AND I have been exposed not to simple truths like the sunrise is actually the Earth rotating from shadow to light, but to complicatedicky explainy rationalizations for why Building Seven collapsed so neatly that defy my understanding of the Laws of Physics.

And I am not so much sticking not to fast and erroneous answers, whc03grady, as honoring my sticky questions thus far not answered. The quoted statement is a personal declaration of refusing to kowtow to others' beliefs, perhaps.
Colin
BobD - 1978 Bus . . . . . . . . . . .110,350 miles
Chloe - 1970 bus . . . . . . . . . . . 206,775 miles
Naranja - 1977 Westfalia . . . . 72,350 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . 55,478 miles
Alexus - 1991 Lexus LS400 . . . 64,425 miles

User avatar
Happyfolk
Getting Hooked!
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:04 am
Location: Verona, WI
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Happyfolk » Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:34 am

Amskeptic wrote:
Jivermo wrote:9/11 conspiracy? Hell, I'm still back on the grassy knoll.
If ever there should be a conflict between my own perceptions and an "official truth", I shall stay firmly on the side of my perceptions.

As of right now, there is no way I can bridge my understanding of:
Twin Towers
a) steel building construction with a central "tube" of vertical girders around a total of nine elevator shafts collapsing with exquisite symmetry from the inner to the outer
b) film of said buildings collapsing at free-fall speed (you can see the north tower antennae drop first!)

Building 7
a) collapsing like a pancake from debris strikes and simple contents fire after five hours
b) film of the center of the roof dropping first!

Oh well, how 'bout that USC game, huh?
Colin
=D>
Definitely the #1 thing that makes no sense whatsoever to anyone with common sense is how both towers could come straight down at free-fall speed like that. You'd think that with the steel structure around the perimeter of each building, IF an aluminum aircraft could penetrate steel that thick, then why wouldn't they fall over sideways from the points of impact up?

Then seeing the sparks coming from the corners of the building in the video footage several floors below the impact points which definitely appear to be thermite burning. And the multiple explosions coming from throughout the buildings, even on the lower floors. Seems to have been a pre-planned job with demolition materials placed starting months in advance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kscTVnEcPMk

And Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC, saying "pull it" on video just as Bldg 7 goes down. Demo charges take planning and time to place. You can't just "pull" a building that quickly. He'd owned the property for ONE WEEK prior and had taken out much larger insurance than normal which was paid out to him.

Add in the fact that the neocons in their "Project for a New American Century" website, written by several Bush administration members, had years before said they needed a "new Pearl Harbor" event to justify military actions in the middle east that they wanted but couldn't otherwise justify.
79 CA FI Westy
Mexico Beige
"Sandy"

User avatar
whc03grady
IAC Addict!
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:06 am
Location: Livingston Montana
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by whc03grady » Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:16 pm

Nothing that heavy falls over sideways.
Ludwig--1974 Westfalia, 2.0L (GD035193), Solex 34PDSIT-2/3 carburetors.
Gertie--1971 Squareback, 1600cc with Bosch D-Jetronic fuel injection from a '72 (E brain).
Read about their adventures:
http://www.ludwigandgertie.blogspot.com

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Posts: 22211
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:47 am
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Amskeptic » Sun Jan 15, 2017 12:31 pm

whc03grady wrote:Nothing that heavy falls over sideways.
That is an interesting point.

But, if the impact was up at 80 floors, wouldn't the light uppermost twenty floors show some tendency to collapse first at the impact point off to the side?
If the beginning of the collapse appears to have initiated from the center of the building directly under the radio tower (which visibly began to drop before the perimeter), where the nine elevator shafts all had reinforced vertical beams, doesn't that make you wonder?
Colin
BobD - 1978 Bus . . . . . . . . . . .110,350 miles
Chloe - 1970 bus . . . . . . . . . . . 206,775 miles
Naranja - 1977 Westfalia . . . . 72,350 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . 55,478 miles
Alexus - 1991 Lexus LS400 . . . 64,425 miles

User avatar
hippiewannabe
Addicted!
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:50 pm
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by hippiewannabe » Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:15 pm

Amskeptic wrote:
whc03grady wrote:Nothing that heavy falls over sideways.
That is an interesting point.

But, if the impact was up at 80 floors, wouldn't the light uppermost twenty floors show some tendency to collapse first at the impact point off to the side?
If the beginning of the collapse appears to have initiated from the center of the building directly under the radio tower (which visibly began to drop before the perimeter), where the nine elevator shafts all had reinforced vertical beams, doesn't that make you wonder?
Colin
Gravity pulls in one direction: straight down. To make something fall other than straight down, you have to provide torsion around a pivot point. Sometimes it happens by accident, demolition experts make it happen all the time. This guy is not an expert:


Image

The heavy concrete floors of the WTC were pulled straight down by gravity. Even though one side of the lightweight metal frame may have given way before another, it wasn't close to creating a tilt, so each floor pancaked into the next, taking the shortest path to the ground.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The next best time is today.

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Posts: 22211
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:47 am
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Amskeptic » Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:03 am

hippiewannabe wrote:To make something fall other than straight down, you have to provide torsion around a pivot point. Sometimes it happens by accident, demolition experts make it happen all the time. This guy is not an expert:

Image
Excellent illustration of your point. Now put a vertical array of nine "elevator shaft" beams with a corrected "gauge thickness" that would be equivalent to the WTC buildings and see how far that thing would fall. The silo is a weaker design by far, and it still managed to maintain its integrity even with "thirty floors" of outside wall eaten away around half of its perimeter. I fully expected that the WTC would at most have had a partial pancake at the point of impact that was absorbed and stopped within several floors. The total weight of the building did not change in any way after impact. People down in the lower floors heard the impact, but barely felt it. So why would all the structural elements give way so totally as to hit the speed of terminal velocity? You can't say that the acceleration of the uppermost part of the building until it hit the floors under the impact point exceeded the design strength of the building. As an analogy, when a bus crashes into an abutment, the structure successively absorbs the energy.
Colin
BobD - 1978 Bus . . . . . . . . . . .110,350 miles
Chloe - 1970 bus . . . . . . . . . . . 206,775 miles
Naranja - 1977 Westfalia . . . . 72,350 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . 55,478 miles
Alexus - 1991 Lexus LS400 . . . 64,425 miles

User avatar
hippiewannabe
Addicted!
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:50 pm
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by hippiewannabe » Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:53 pm

Amskeptic wrote:
hippiewannabe wrote:To make something fall other than straight down, you have to provide torsion around a pivot point. Sometimes it happens by accident, demolition experts make it happen all the time. This guy is not an expert:

Image
Excellent illustration of your point. Now put a vertical array of nine "elevator shaft" beams with a corrected "gauge thickness" that would be equivalent to the WTC buildings and see how far that thing would fall. The silo is a weaker design by far, and it still managed to maintain its integrity even with "thirty floors" of outside wall eaten away around half of its perimeter. I fully expected that the WTC would at most have had a partial pancake at the point of impact that was absorbed and stopped within several floors. The total weight of the building did not change in any way after impact. People down in the lower floors heard the impact, but barely felt it. So why would all the structural elements give way so totally as to hit the speed of terminal velocity? You can't say that the acceleration of the uppermost part of the building until it hit the floors under the impact point exceeded the design strength of the building. As an analogy, when a bus crashes into an abutment, the structure successively absorbs the energy.
Colin
The silo was just to illustrate the point of weight wanting to come straight to ground unless acted upon to make it do something else. The WTC is a totally different structure. The silo is heavy walls with nothing in the middle, while a modern skyscraper is a lightweight steel skeleton holding up concrete floors.

That the towers stood after receiving the initial blow, taking out some of the outer structure, is testament to stout design with an appropriate safety factor. Eventually the heat of the fire weakened the steel, including the inner shaft columns, releasing the concrete slabs. I would guess one floor could support the weight of one additional floor falling on it, but not with part of the structure taken out and the rest softened by heat. Once two floors came crashing down on the third, the chain reaction was unstoppable.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The next best time is today.

User avatar
Spezialist
Old School!
Posts: 679
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:35 am
Location: Patkiwoema
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Spezialist » Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:16 am

https://youtu.be/nvRwhRMm5ZU

former employee of NIST, you might have to watch it a few times, have a beer. its going to be hard to realize we were right and your blind patriotism was wrong
You probably live on stolen land, in a fake country with zero consciousness. All the while perpetually committing genocide against the native people blissfully living a consumerist culture wondering why mass shootings occur.

User avatar
hippiewannabe
Addicted!
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:50 pm
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by hippiewannabe » Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:39 pm

OK, I indulged you and watched the video. I was anticipating some new facts, or at least serious analysis. All it was was an ad hominem attack on NIST, and reference to a letter written to a non peer reviewed journal. I read the letter, it's nothing new.

Issues of false attribution aside, the article was written by four authors who have aggressively promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories and who are members of groups such as Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for 911 Truth. The paper primarily targets the official conclusion of the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, which argued that fire adequately explained the collapse of all three WTC buildings. The Europhysics Newsarticle relied heavily on discredited claims, none of which were new, including:

Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams (This claim is misleading, as steel beams do to not need to melt completely to be compromised structurally).
A sprinkler system would have prevented temperatures from rising high enough to cause to cause structural damage. (This claim ignores the fact that a crash from a 767 jet would likely destroy such a system.)
The structural system would have been protected by fireproofing material (similarly, such a system would have been damaged in a 767 crash).
Puffs of smoke exploding from below the collapsing towers suggests controlled demolition. (This claim does little to address the simplerexplanation that air pressure from the collapse of one of the largest buildings ever built would have forced air and debris through windows).
The buildings fell at a rate possible only by a controlled demolition. (Numerous engineers and scientists have argued that the rate at which the buildings fell is consistent with the manner in which the towers failed, and that the exact time of total collapse is hard to pin down reliably in the first place.)
In response to the EPN story, NIST, the government agency that investigated the World Trade Center attack, stated that they stand behind their study, calling it “the most detailed examination of structural failure ever conducted.”

For their part, EPN released a statement after having been pressed by podcaster Stephen Knight:

EPN is a magazine that publishes a range of news and views to stimulate discussion - unlike peer reviewed research which would be published in a scholarly journal. EDP Sciences [their parent company] follows the most rigorous peer review standards for its journals of which EPN is not one.

As a magazine, the editorial policy of EPN is to publish news and views, which are sometimes controversial. EDP Sciences recognizes that the article discusses some speculative and controversial issues. However EPN and EDP Sciences believe that the best (and the most scientific) way to settle such issues is to publish them and have an open discussion with all due arguments in which the truth will finally emerge. A counter article is to be published by EPN in the next issue.
http://www.snopes.com/journal-endorses- ... cy-theory/


It's not patriotism, it's physics.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The next best time is today.

User avatar
Spezialist
Old School!
Posts: 679
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:35 am
Location: Patkiwoema
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Spezialist » Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:33 pm

hippiewannabe wrote:OK, I indulged you and watched the video. I was anticipating some new facts, or at least serious analysis. All it was was an ad hominem attack on NIST, and reference to a letter written to a non peer reviewed journal. I read the letter, it's nothing new.

Issues of false attribution aside, the article was written by four authors who have aggressively promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories and who are members of groups such as Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for 911 Truth. The paper primarily targets the official conclusion of the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, which argued that fire adequately explained the collapse of all three WTC buildings. The Europhysics Newsarticle relied heavily on discredited claims, none of which were new, including:

Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams (This claim is misleading, as steel beams do to not need to melt completely to be compromised structurally).
A sprinkler system would have prevented temperatures from rising high enough to cause to cause structural damage. (This claim ignores the fact that a crash from a 767 jet would likely destroy such a system.)
The structural system would have been protected by fireproofing material (similarly, such a system would have been damaged in a 767 crash).
Puffs of smoke exploding from below the collapsing towers suggests controlled demolition. (This claim does little to address the simplerexplanation that air pressure from the collapse of one of the largest buildings ever built would have forced air and debris through windows).
The buildings fell at a rate possible only by a controlled demolition. (Numerous engineers and scientists have argued that the rate at which the buildings fell is consistent with the manner in which the towers failed, and that the exact time of total collapse is hard to pin down reliably in the first place.)
In response to the EPN story, NIST, the government agency that investigated the World Trade Center attack, stated that they stand behind their study, calling it “the most detailed examination of structural failure ever conducted.”

For their part, EPN released a statement after having been pressed by podcaster Stephen Knight:

EPN is a magazine that publishes a range of news and views to stimulate discussion - unlike peer reviewed research which would be published in a scholarly journal. EDP Sciences [their parent company] follows the most rigorous peer review standards for its journals of which EPN is not one.

As a magazine, the editorial policy of EPN is to publish news and views, which are sometimes controversial. EDP Sciences recognizes that the article discusses some speculative and controversial issues. However EPN and EDP Sciences believe that the best (and the most scientific) way to settle such issues is to publish them and have an open discussion with all due arguments in which the truth will finally emerge. A counter article is to be published by EPN in the next issue.
http://www.snopes.com/journal-endorses- ... cy-theory/


It's not patriotism, it's physics.
Ok, I saw that more than one NIST employee has come out. Irregardless.

I like Judy.
You probably live on stolen land, in a fake country with zero consciousness. All the while perpetually committing genocide against the native people blissfully living a consumerist culture wondering why mass shootings occur.

User avatar
Spezialist
Old School!
Posts: 679
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:35 am
Location: Patkiwoema
Status: Offline

Re: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Do they hold any water?

Post by Spezialist » Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:12 pm

The use of oscams razor defined

http://scienceblogs.com/developingintel ... ry-is-alm/

Watching huge pieces of building turn to dust is irrefutably just steel and concrete turning to dust.
You probably live on stolen land, in a fake country with zero consciousness. All the while perpetually committing genocide against the native people blissfully living a consumerist culture wondering why mass shootings occur.

Post Reply

Return to “Free Speech”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests