• 9/11 Truth movement holds series of press conferences
    333 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;25145322]Billions of tons of thermite were at the scene of 9/11 according to this geocities website I found.[/QUOTE] Is it too hard to just provide a link to where you read that?
[QUOTE=Hostel;25145362]Is it too hard to just provide a link to where you read that?[/QUOTE] I think he was being sarcastic, but if he wasn't you can't transport that much thermite (fuck I don't even think it would fit in the building) without someone noticing.
Do you guys realize how much "billions of tons" is
[QUOTE=TH89;25145895]Do you guys realize how much "billions of tons" is[/QUOTE] a lot
[QUOTE=TH89;25145895]Do you guys realize how much "billions of tons" is[/QUOTE] Almost as much as your mom heh
[QUOTE=ketchup;25145810]I think he was being sarcastic, but if he wasn't you can't transport that much thermite (fuck I don't even think it would fit in the building) without someone noticing.[/QUOTE] This isn't sarcasm, You see 9/11 was planned a long time back, right when they were constructing the buildings. And do you know what they were made of? THERMITE SHEEPLE. I don't actually have a clear idea of what their motive is, or how it fits into anything. But I know for certain that 9/11 was an inside job and nothing on earth could convince me otherwise.
[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;25145967]This isn't sarcasm, You see 9/11 was planned a long time back, right when they were constructing the buildings. And do you know what they were made of? THERMITE SHEEPLE. I don't actually have a clear idea of what their motive is, or how it fits into anything. But I know for certain that 9/11 was an inside job and nothing on earth could convince me otherwise.[/QUOTE] and ive got plenty of proof that pretty much cites only itself!
Back from a night of wonderment and gallivanting. Let's see what we got here... [QUOTE=MrEndangered;25144019] These reasons are why the 9/11 movement is practically dead.[/QUOTE] How do you explain the military officials, scientists, and high profile members of society coming forward as being a part of this movement?
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25146082]How do you explain the military officials, scientists, and high profile members of society coming forward as being a part of this movement?[/QUOTE] There's a small, vocal minority of paranoids and wingnuts in all walks of life. It's hardly surprising. The military "officials" aren't exactly high in rank, the scientists have produced exactly zero credible research supporting their position, instead relying on "I'm a scientist so I know what I'm talking about" (even though most of them specialize in entirely unrelated fields), and your so-called "high profile members of society" are mostly from the entertainment industry, which is full of ignorant left-wingers anyway.
[QUOTE=TH89;25146148]There's a small, vocal minority of paranoids and wingnuts in all walks of life. It's hardly surprising. The military "officials" aren't exactly high in rank, the scientists have produced exactly zero credible research supporting their position, instead relying on "I'm a scientist so I know what I'm talking about" (even though most of them specialize in entirely unrelated fields), and your so-called "high profile members of society" are mostly from the entertainment industry, which is full of ignorant left-wingers anyway.[/QUOTE] Don't even point to the left or right wing. Liberals and Conservatives both hate the troofer fuckheads. Look at Warhol, he came in here earlier to argue with them. It hardly gets more Liberal than Warhol. But yes those actors, scientists, and officers are all very stupid.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/FQzfa.jpg[/img] [editline]10:28PM[/editline] I figured the thread needed this.
[QUOTE=Zeddy;25146263]Don't even point to the left or right wing. Liberals and Conservatives both hate the troofer fuckheads. Look at Warhol, he came in here earlier to argue with them. It hardly gets more Liberal than Warhol.[/QUOTE] I'm a liberal dude, I'm just keepin it real
I wish I was sober enough to give this the proper response it deserves, so bear with me... [QUOTE=TH89;25143379]None of your evidence is evidence. Everything you post is from troofers and troofer websites. You have no legitimate sources of information, but you don't mind, because the troofer websites you read have told you that you can't trust legitimate sources of information.[/quote] I'm well aware that in the field of debate you must have concrete, empirical, non-biased, hard data to really prove your point. One way or the other, you're right in the fact that regardless of what sources from our side we choose to pull, that we may never truly be 100% certain as a matter of fact in a touchy subject such as this. That's why, for the sake of the people interested in debate, that we should maintain a level of open-mindedness towards all voices. MK-Ultra sounded absurd. So did the Tuskeegee Experiments. But both showed that the governments regard us all as nothing more than an expendable number. If to you it seems unnecessary to make curious speculation in the public spectrum regarding something as important as this was... well, while I respect your opinion, respectfully, I don't share your views. [QUOTE=TH89;25143379] There's no reason for me to argue with you about thermite. Why not? Because you're not a chemist, and you don't understand what the hell is going on. I'm not a chemist, and I don't understand what the hell is going on either. You can copy and paste some claim about thermite from your troofer website, and I can copy and paste some counter-claim from a debunking website or a science magazine, but neither of us has the expertise to analyze them on that level, so what's the point? [/quote] In this case, all we're really left with is analyzing what the professionals have to say on the matter. That's a lot of what this thread is about. It seems that the discussion got quite derailed, however, the initial debate was concrete: that a lot of professionals, retired and active, are coming out in support of these ideas based upon the respect of those who lost their lives most of all. It's not called the 'truth' movement without a reason, the goal is to ultimately know 'the truth'. Whatever it is, black, white, grey, people don't feel like they know the whole and absolute truth behind the tradegy, and quite frankly, I'm one of them. Even some of the families of loved ones lost wish to know the truth. Wouldn't you want to be able to certifiably tell them not to worry about the fact that their friends, family, and coworkers all lost their lives... and for what? More people to lose their lives abroad? I'm sorry you don't see the point in that, but personally I think it's important. Again, I respect your views but do not share them in this regard. [QUOTE=TH89;25143379] So, since I can't credibly argue the science, and neither can you, we can examine the credibility of those who are. Where is their information coming from? What are their credentials? If you examine these aspects of the troofer movement, their credibility collapses faster than the twin towers. Apart from the choice of issue, your beloved troofers are really no different from creationism/intelligent design advocates.[/QUOTE] Without a doubt I agree that none of us really know the science about any of what went on that day. But aside from already taking into consideration the source of the information, the person behind it, etc, I don't share your views that any and all data in support of it is biased and untrustworthy. I try to maintain an open mind, whilst simultaneously critiquing all aspects of the debate. If I had concluded that it was bunk disinformation not worth any ones time (especially my own, mind you) I wouldn't have bothered posting it or defending it.
ITT ignorance Buildings falling by simply fire..k
Let's not bash anyone now... the last thing this thread needs is another ad hom flame fest. [editline]05:48AM[/editline] Although I do share your view. :v:
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25146082]Back from a night of wonderment and gallivanting. Let's see what we got here... How do you explain the military officials, scientists, and high profile members of society coming forward as being a part of this movement?[/QUOTE] An investigative journalist puts the points together for you and presents it. A Conspiracy theorist grabs a bunch of dots and says to put them together.
You have one of the worst cases of cognitive dissonance I have ever seen. In the previous thread you decried the moon landing hoax conspiracy due to the exact same sort of evidence that you dismiss for the 9/11 conspiracy. You are a fucking joke who cherry picks evidence to support your preconceived view of an event that has far more support otherwise. Nothing we say or show you or tell you about the incredible complexity and absurdity of a plan such as a conspiracy of this magnitude by the US government will ever change your thoughts, because that's not how conspiracy theories work. You grab onto an idea and will never give it up, for want of proof or anything else.
[QUOTE=Adius Shadow;25146480]ITT ignorance Buildings falling by simply fire..k[/QUOTE] I don't want to start this again, but you're clearly so fucking ignorant it hurts me to read this post. The buildings fell due to 1) A jet impacted a tower weakening the floors it hit, weakening the main structure of it, and weakening the supports holding the floors above. 2) Fire weakened steel led to the weakening of the rest of the system. 3) The floors on top fell down pancaking the building. Yeah, just fire? Fuck off. [editline]01:59AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Xen Tricks;25147835]You have one of the worst cases of cognitive dissonance I have ever seen. In the previous thread you decried the moon landing hoax conspiracy due to the exact same sort of evidence that you dismiss for the 9/11 conspiracy. You are a fucking joke who cherry picks evidence to support your preconceived view of an event that has far more support otherwise. Nothing we say or show you or tell you about the incredible complexity and absurdity of a plan such as a conspiracy of this magnitude by the US government will ever chance your thoughts, because that's not how conspiracy theories work. You grab onto an idea and will never give it up, for want of proof or anything else.[/QUOTE] Truthers plead with everyone to have open minds, and yet they do the shit they do and act so close minded?
Yep, it's certain now. On my forum, 9/11 truth threads will get you permanently banned.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25141622]We've discussed that scientists supporting creationism and scientists supporting 9/11 truth work under completely different modus operandi.[/QUOTE] YAH GAIS, I KNOW LATIN WORDS *furiously googles M.O* [editline]02:44PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeddy;25146263]Don't even point to the left or right wing. Liberals and Conservatives both hate the troofer fuckheads. Look at Warhol, he came in here earlier to argue with them. It hardly gets more Liberal than Warhol. But yes those actors, scientists, and officers are all very stupid.[/QUOTE] p. much this
How about this: Let's assume that the "guv-ment" [I]somehow[/I] managed to sneak in the [I]"hundreds of tons"[/I] of [I]nano-thermite[/I], completely undetected, it still leaves some questions: 1: [I]If [/I]there was as much thermite in the building as you say there was, why did none of it prematurely detonate from the airplane hitting the building, and the fires that were set across many of the floors? (You may just say that it [I]did[/I] detonate, but was shrouded by the exploding jet fuel, but then how would you explain building 7?) 2: [I]If[/I] the nano-thermite was this all-powerful high explosive, like you say it is, why is there not a [I]single[/I] audible explosion? You can hear the explosives that they use in conventional demolition from miles away, and if nano-thermite was so much more powerful, it would be that much louder. 3: Why was there no visible sign of either a thermite reaction, explosive or chemical? If it were explosive, you would have windows shattering and debris getting blown out from the sides of the towers [U]before[/U] they began to collapse. If it were chemical, you would have seen many of the floors light up with molten metal. Neither of these are present in [I]any[/I] of the 9/11 footage. Also, I'd like to bring back a bit of logic that you presented in the WTC 7 thread. You constantly spouted that because no steel building had ever been brought down by fire before, it wasn't possible for it to have happened with WTC 7. Well guess what? There is not one instance that I could find where a major building has [I]EVER[/I] been brought down by thermite. Thermite is used to cut up the debris of a demolished building into easier to manage pieces, but there is not [B]ONE[/B] instance where a full skyscraper has been demolished via thermite. According to [B]YOUR OWN LOGIC[/B], it must be impossible for thermite to have been used. [B]EDIT:[/B] Look what I found! All of this is simple critical thinking: [quote][B]The tentants of the controlled demolition theory: [/B]The subscribers of the controlled demolition theory generally believe either 1. Explosives were detonated to produce the collapse. 2. Or the incendiary Thermite was used to cut the steel. [B]1. "Explosives were detonated to produce the collapse"[/B] To demolish the WTC towers in the manner they collapsed (Top down linearly) would require an enormous amount of explosives. Theorist contend the destruction seen in videos is due to explosives rather then compromised structural elements and mal-distributed weight. To reproduce the collapses using only explosives, explosives would likely have to be placed on every floor or every several floors for the entire length of the building and be detonated from the impact zone downward. Explosive placement redundancy would be neccesary since the conspirators wouldn't know exactly where the plane would crash. [LIST] [*]CD would produce a flurry of loud, percussive explosions which the collapse wouldn't disguise, compounded by the fact that in this view the destruction is being caused by the explosives themselves rather then structural failure, giving the illusion of progressive failure [*]The explosives would be required to withstand the impact of a Jetliner, the subsequent explosion all the while silent during detonation [*]The explosives would be required to remain undetected by the bomb sniffing dogs, security, mantainance, guest and average employee's for months or years [*]The thousands of proposed demolition charges would have to go off with 100% reliability, lest they be found in the debris [*]Miles of wires would be required, hidden from view of the WTC staff *Truthers attempt to reconcile the last point by suggesting explosives were planted in the core by elevator operators which would require all operators to be part of the conspiracy unless you believe they wouldn't notice miles of explosive detonation cord conspicuously sprouting from random holes. [/LIST] The implication is explosives were detonated progressively in a linear manner from the impact zone down to produce the illusion of a progressive collapse which would require explosives that could withstand the impact of a Jetliner and be silent when detonated at the same time. These simply don't exist. [B]The facts:[/B] [LIST] [*]No controlled demolition paraphernalia was found in Debris [*]No explosions or other analogous controlled demolition hallmarks were heard or seen during collapse [*]None of the solid debris shown signs of being destroyed by explosives [*]Debris did show signs of being warped by heat as well as being removed of there fire proofing [/LIST] [B]2. "The incendiary Thermite was used to cut the steel"[/B] Thermite has an extremely short life cycle, unlike fire which can survive as long as it has oxygen and combustible material, which there's an abundance of in an office building. Once Thermite is ignited and burns off all the reacting material/fuel (Iron Oxide/aluminum), it's dead. Thermite simply does not turn solid steel into molten steel. It corodes the metal and tends to leave ugly holes in the offending material. Molten is defined as: Liquefied by heat; in a state of fusion; melted. [URL="http://www.debunking911.com/Molten.jpg"][COLOR=#0000ff]This is NOT molten[/COLOR][/URL] A mechanism would be required to apply the Thermite horizontally. Even if there was a mechanism to distribute it horizontally it would likely only corrode a relatively small portion of the steel unless massive amounts were used on the individual columns. If there were any molten pools at Ground zero as some attest, it was most likely aluminum since as I stated earlier, Thermite doesn't turn solid steel into molten steel. Also due to Thermites fast reaction time it can not account for the months worth of high tempatures in the debris. [B]The Facts:[/B] [LIST] [*]Thermite has never been used in building demolition [*]Thermite is not an explosive [*]No debris shown signs of being destroyed or distorted by thermite [*]Thermite burns extremely brightly; the proposed thermite charges would have been clearly visible had it been used in the WTC [*]Tons upon tons of Thermite would be required, incapsulated and placed in an unknown location[/quote] [/LIST]
Oh my god ShukaidoX are you STILL FUCKING GOING? This is embarrassing.
Poor shukaidoX, starts arguments then just runs away like a bitch. At least admit defeat.
[QUOTE=The Vman;25151991]How about this: Let's assume that the "guv-ment" [I]somehow[/I] managed to sneak in the [I]"hundreds of tons"[/I] of [I]nano-thermite[/I], completely undetected, it still leaves some questions: 1: [I]If [/I]there was as much thermite in the building as you say there was, why did none of it prematurely detonate from the airplane hitting the building, and the fires that were set across many of the floors? (You may just say that it [I]did[/I] detonate, but was shrouded by the exploding jet fuel, but then how would you explain building 7?)[/QUOTE] Apparently you missed this a couple pages back. This accounts for all of that. [QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25139225]The researchers found studies done on nano-thermite as early as 2000 that showed the following: [B]Safe handling of the malleable sol-gel material allows easy coating of surfaces (such as steel), which the same group, in a subsequent report, says they have achieved.[/B] “The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to dipcoat various substrates to make sol-gel Fe2O3/Al/Viton coatings. The energetic coating dries to give a nice adherent film.” “We have prepared fine powders, pressed pellets, cast monoliths, and thin films of the hybrid inorganic/ organic energetic nanocomposite” [25]. [B]Thus, the energetic nano-composite can be sprayed or even “painted” onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic or even explosive paint[/B]. The red chips we found in the WTC dust conform to their description of “thin films” of “hybrid inorganic/organic energetic nanocomposite”.[B] Indeed, the descriptive terms “energetic coating” and “nice adherent film” fit very well with our observations of the red-chips[/B] which survived the WTC destruction. Here's the actual picture of the nano-thermite chips mentioned in the scientific document: [IMG]http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/9411/nanicq.jpg[/IMG] Keep trying to make me look like a fool all you want, it won't change anything.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=The Vman;25151991] 2: [I]If[/I] the nano-thermite was this all-powerful high explosive, like you say it is, why is there not a [I]single[/I] audible explosion? You can hear the explosives that they use in conventional demolition from miles away, and if nano-thermite was so much more powerful, it would be that much louder.[/QUOTE] Oh, I guess you missed this, too: [Quote]A graph in an article on nanostructured energetic materials [21] shows that the [B]energy/volume yield for Al/Fe2O3 composite material exceeds that of TNT[/B], HMX and TATB explosives commonly used in demolitions (see Fig. (30)).[/Quote] and this [Quote]Again, conventional thermite is regarded as an incendiary whereas [B]super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for rapid gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explosive[/B] [6, 24].[/Quote]It's a pyrotechnic used COMMONLY in demolitions. It produces extensive amounts of energy but not explosively like seen with TNT. All of your points have already been addressed. I'm just debunking them again for the sake of showing all of the people out there who think this is so black and white that there is a lot to take into consideration still. [QUOTE=The Vman;25151991] 3: Why was there no visible sign of either a thermite reaction, explosive or chemical? If it were explosive, you would have windows shattering and debris getting blown out from the sides of the towers [U]before[/U] they began to collapse. If it were chemical, you would have seen many of the floors light up with molten metal. Neither of these are present in [I]any[/I] of the 9/11 footage. [/QUOTE] Right...I linked this ALREADY and kinda went over this already too, but just for you... [IMG]http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=f67q6272583h86n4&size=largest[/IMG] Knowing you guys and how you won't even bother to read it so I'll basically spell out what it says for you: [B]Inextinguishable fires took place after the towers went down for 'inexplicable reasons' that burned incessantly despite the following precautions: [/B]Several inches of dust from rubble, millions of gallons of water were sprayed, even heavy rainfall and the use of a a fire supressant called Pyrocool was pumped in to stop it. But guess what? Despite all that, [B]they could not be put out. [/B]And you try to make the claim that "there was NOTHING there", my you really are more biased than you realize. You must have missed all this atleast 5 pages ago. This basically disproves your biased source quoted in verbatim since it didn't take any of this into consideration at all. "Miles of wire" required my ass. This research has been done since as early as 2000. [editline]08:12PM[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25157294]Poor shukaidoX, starts arguments then just runs away like a bitch. At least admit defeat.[/QUOTE] :fuckoff:
First: Another 9/11 Truther source? Second: Thermite can't be used as an explosive to bring down a building, we already debunked that. Anything else?
You know, those arguments have been addressed. I think you're just not reading enough. and stop using that emote you weirdo. Serious question, do you believe in FEMA camps?
Don't feed the idiot. Just report the minge. I figure this counts under 'spamming'.
[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;25158449]Don't feed the idiot. Just report the minge. I figure this counts under 'spamming'.[/QUOTE] I argue for the benefit of others, he can believe what he likes. But you're right.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25157896]Apparently you missed this a couple pages back. This accounts for all of that.[/QUOTE] That literally states nothing about why it didn't prematurely detonate. It's like you randomly bolded sections and hoped I would skim over it thinking it was something relevant to what I said. [quote]Oh, I guess you missed this, too: and this It's a pyrotechnic used COMMONLY in demolitions. It produces extensive amounts of energy but not explosively like seen with TNT. All of your points have already been addressed. I'm just debunking them again for the sake of showing all of the people out there who think this is so black and white that there is a lot to take into consideration still.[/quote]Cite me a [B]SINGLE[/B] instance when thermite was used to [B]FULLY DEMOLISH[/B] a building, and not just to clean up the debris. Also, if it's so "common" you should have no trouble finding a video of it detonating. Give us a video of what its reaction looks like. Hell! Maybe you can even find a video of a building getting demolished by it! [quote]Right...I linked this ALREADY and kinda went over this already too, but just for you... Knowing you guys and how you won't even bother to read it so I'll basically spell out what it says for you: [B]Inextinguishable fires took place after the towers went down for 'inexplicable reasons' that burned incessantly despite the following precautions: [/B]Several inches of dust from rubble, millions of gallons of water were sprayed, even heavy rainfall and the use of a a fire supressant called Pyrocool was pumped in to stop it. But guess what? Despite all that, [B]they could not be put out. [/B]And you try to make the claim that "there was NOTHING there", my you really are more biased than you realize.[/quote]That [B]also [/B]literally has nothing to do with what I said. I was asking why there was absolutely no visual evidence of the thermite reactions [B]inside the building before the implosion[/B], which would have been [B]clearly [/B]visible, considering how much thermite they would have needed and how brightly thermite burns.
RIP ShukaidoX :smith:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.