• 9/11 Truth movement holds series of press conferences
    333 replies, posted
The coffin doesn't have enough nails in it. [I]Ban[/I]hammer a few more in.
It feels like you people are letting your resentment of these so-called 'conspiracy theorists' get in the way of your deductive reasoning. There are some blatant contradictions with the report and what actually happened. The most glaring of which would be WTC building 7. It wasn't even really hit by anything. I'm not saying that it was an inside job or anything, but I do strongly believe that there is much more to the story than what we have been told. As such, the call for a transparent, thorough investigation is only logical. What about the planes being completely vaporized? The hijackers coming forward and being alive? The fact that the buildings were specifically designed to be able to take a hit from a plane? There's a lot of missing pieces to the puzzle, and whether it was an inside, outside, or whatever job, we're not getting the whole story as is.
The buildings were specifically designed to take a hit from a plane? what?
[QUOTE=Warhol;25162001]The buildings were specifically designed to take a hit from a plane? what?[/QUOTE] I'll try to find it, but I've seen an interview with one of the architects. In it he says that the buildings were designed to take [I]multiple[/I] impacts from a Boeing 747. [editline]06:11PM[/editline] And I'm loving the dumb ratings I'm getting. "Hurf, no I don't want to know for sure, I'm much better off not knowing." :downs:
[QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25161886]The most glaring of which would be WTC building 7. It wasn't even really hit by anything.[/QUOTE] Anything other than falling debris from the exploding skyscraper right next to it, you mean? [QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25161886]What about the planes being completely vaporized?[/QUOTE] They weren't. [QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25161886]The hijackers coming forward and being alive?[/QUOTE] They didn't. [QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25161886]The fact that the buildings were specifically designed to be able to take a hit from a plane?[/QUOTE] The buildings were designed to take a hit from a [i]707[/i] traveling at approach speed, carrying little to no fuel, i.e. the circumstances of an accident. They were hit by a 757 full of fuel, traveling at as close to maximum speed as the pilot could manage.
[QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25161886]It feels like you people are letting your resentment of these so-called 'conspiracy theorists' get in the way of your deductive reasoning. There are some blatant contradictions with the report and what actually happened. The most glaring of which would be WTC building 7. It wasn't even really hit by anything.[/QUOTE] So like all the conspiracy theorists you're going to completely ignore the other three threads, the mountains of evidence, the reasoned, rational arguing and fact finding and the reading of his sources we did? Oh no no, I'm sorry, you're right. We're all hating him 'for fun', because 'he's a silly man', this has all come out of 'nowhere'. [QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25161886]I'm not saying that it was an inside job or anything, but I do strongly believe that there is much more to the story than what we have been told. As such, the call for a transparent, thorough investigation is only logical.[/QUOTE] You can believe in fairy dust if you like; We're not going to hate you for that, but there is a matter of evidence. Believing means nothing. So try not to come into threads condemning people because of something you 'believe'. [QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25161886]What about the planes being completely vaporized? The hijackers coming forward and being alive? The fact that the buildings were specifically designed to be able to take a hit from a plane? [/QUOTE] 1) An aluminum plane crashed into a steel building at 500mph, this would vaporise the wings and tail, but the rest would be lodged into the building and be on fire (Not to mention all the other parts that flew off and hit WTC 7 and other buildings) so it didn't magically 'go poof' 2) Have you never heard of people 'lying'? 3) The Titanic was made not to sink. [QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25161886]There's a lot of missing pieces to the puzzle, and whether it was an inside, outside, or whatever job, we're not getting the whole story as is.[/QUOTE] Sure, if you watch Fox News or only casually read a newspaper. The whole thing has been compiled piece by piece by qualified experts and peer-reviewed. You'd probably need a truck to transport all the scientific papers proving it wasn't an inside job.
If this is so then why not post it? Instead of, you know, us having to take your word for it.
Here's a start: [url]http://wtc.nist.gov/[/url]
[QUOTE=TH89;25162328]They weren't. They didn't. The buildings were designed to take a hit from a [I]707[/I] traveling at approach speed, carrying little to no fuel, i.e. the circumstances of an accident. They were hit by a 757 full of fuel, traveling at as close to maximum speed as the pilot could manage.[/QUOTE] Upon further looking into it, you are correct that it was designed to take the impact of a 707 rather than a 747. It didn't say anything about the fuel content, though. Where did you read/hear that? Have you seen pictures of the crash sites in the Pentagon or Shanksville? There really isn't much plane matter left, but they claimed they were able to identify all of the bodies. Since those are up for debate, what about building 7? I think you're missing the point of my post, though. My point is that we're being kept mostly in the dark about these things, and there's no possible negative side-effect of conducting an actual thorough investigation. [editline]06:42PM[/editline] [QUOTE=MrEndangered;25162548]So like all the conspiracy theorists you're going to completely ignore the other three threads, the mountains of evidence, the reasoned, rational arguing and fact finding and the reading of his sources we did? Oh no no, I'm sorry, you're right. We're all hating him 'for fun', because 'he's a silly man', this has all come out of 'nowhere'.[/quote] I was unaware there were other threads, but bringing that up makes it kinda seem like you're making it a personal issue. [QUOTE=MrEndangered;25162548]You can believe in fairy dust if you like; We're not going to hate you for that, but there is a matter of evidence. Believing means nothing. So try not to come into threads condemning people because of something you 'believe'.[/quote] I never 'condemned' anyone for anything. I simply stated my opinion. [QUOTE=MrEndangered;25162548]1) An aluminum plane crashed into a steel building at 500mph, this would vaporise the wings and tail, but the rest would be lodged into the building and be on fire (Not to mention all the other parts that flew off and hit WTC 7 and other buildings) so it didn't magically 'go poof' 2) Have you never heard of people 'lying'? 3) The Titanic was made not to sink.[/quote] 1. So what happened to the steel/titanium engines? 2. Same to you. 3. Good point. [QUOTE=MrEndangered;25162548]Sure, if you watch Fox News or only casually read a newspaper. The whole thing has been compiled piece by piece by qualified experts and peer-reviewed. You'd probably need a truck to transport all the scientific papers proving it wasn't an inside job.[/QUOTE] I'd say there's an equal amount of info to the contrary.
[QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25162782]Upon further looking into it, you are correct that it was designed to take the impact of a 707 rather than a 747. It didn't say anything about the fuel content, though. Where did you read/hear that?[/QUOTE] From [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=PJ3bfaDVcvMC&pg=SA1-PA17&lpg=SA1-PA17#v=onepage&q&f=false]FEMA's 9/11 report[/url]: [quote=FEMA]The WTC towers were the first structures outside of the military and the nuclear industries whose design considered the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed in the 1960s design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speeds.[/quote] [QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25162782]Have you seen pictures of the crash sites in the Pentagon or Shanksville? There really isn't much plane matter left, but they claimed they were able to identify all of the bodies.[/QUOTE] Oh, so first it was "the planes were completely vaporized," now it's "there wasn't much plane matter left?" You're not doing yourself any favors by making unsubstantiable claims that even you aren't willing to stand behind. [IMG]http://imgur.com/V7Lqo.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25162782]Since those are up for debate, what about building 7?[/QUOTE] What [i]about[/i] building 7? [QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25162782]I think you're missing the point of my post, though. My point is that we're being kept mostly in the dark about these things, and there's no possible negative side-effect of conducting an actual thorough investigation.[/QUOTE] There has been a thorough investigation. Here it is again: [url]http://wtc.nist.gov/[/url] The only person keeping you in the dark here is you.
Fema? More like fema camp!
[QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25162782]I was unaware there were other threads, but bringing that up makes it kinda seem like you're making it a personal issue.[/QUOTE] I'm just stating that there have been many threads about this, it's fact. Reading them would probably answer all your questions instantly. [QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25162782]I never 'condemned' anyone for anything. I simply stated my opinion.[/QUOTE] No, you practically called us bullies and assholes for fobbing him off. If you knew the history (i.e, seeing and reading these threads), you'd understand why. That's all. [QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25162782]I'd say there's an equal amount of info to the contrary.[/QUOTE] Have a read of it for a couple of hours, then compare that to evidence from the opposite end of the spectrum. Their arguments are baseless, missing key facts or flat out lying. They have no watertight case. At all. Don't take my word for it, just go and do some personal research. (pro-tip, most of their articles are written by psychologists)
[QUOTE=Warhol;25158325]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?[/QUOTE] I'm honestly scared to death to find myself on the same side as Warhol...
ShukaidoX is a 10 year old, there is no other way to explain that he doesn't actually listen to anything we say, just repeats his rhetoric. I would say it's fair most of us have at least looked at his evidence, and searched for counters and found TONS OF IT. Endless fucking heaps of counter evidence to one shred of "evidence". Why the fuck does this mean nothing to you ShukaidoX?
[QUOTE=TH89;25143379]If you examine these aspects of the troofer movement, their credibility collapses faster than the twin towers. [/QUOTE] One might say their credibility collapses at [I]free-fall speeds.[/I]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25133663]Let me clarify: because this thread is about 9/11, the people involved should be discredited, the subject banned, and the people involved deemed insane. :protarget:[/QUOTE] Questioning things should discredit someone? So we should all just believe exactly as we're told?
[QUOTE=DrMortician;25171477]Questioning things should discredit someone? So we should all just believe exactly as we're told?[/QUOTE] If you're being told the things from 9/11 truth groups, yeah, you should just take it at face value like Shuikado does.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25171483]If you're being told the things from 9/11 truth groups, yeah, you should just take it at face value like Shuikado does.[/QUOTE] What about if the news is telling me about things?
[QUOTE=DrMortician;25171493]What about if the news is telling me about things?[/QUOTE] Nah, it's government conspiracies man. I've seen some things man, i wouldn't recommend it.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25171497]Nah, it's government conspiracies man. I've seen some things man, i wouldn't recommend it.[/QUOTE] So really in the end, you're saying the only thing a person should believe and not question, is a belief that's held by the majority of the public, and discredit anyone who thinks differently?
[QUOTE=DrMortician;25171512]So really in the end, you're saying the only thing a person should believe and not question, is a belief that's held by the majority of the public, and discredit anyone who thinks differently?[/QUOTE] Nah, just only hold onto fringe views.
Isn't this the kind of thread DDT was made for?
Nobody's even proved that there were ever planes at all. Jesus people, examine the evidence. Every single person had something to gain or lose from the 9-11 attacks. Most people could have gained something because they dislike muslims taking over their country, or whatever the xenophobes think nowadays. So that's 90% of the videos credibilities out the window. And then the other 10% is part muslim, who would gain from the fear struck into the heart of american citizens. No neutral parties recorded anything. No credibility. Take this into account. Every single person who recorded these events has little to no scientific background. None of them are qualified to record these events. [sp]Shit, I was supposed to use the troofer logic. But I actually used correct logic applied in a fucking retarded way. If someone wants to redo that with the correct spin, feel free.[/sp]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25171515]Nah, just only hold onto fringe views.[/QUOTE] That's actually a reasonable answer.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25138547]"Thinking" you know more than scientists, generals, military officials, architects, engineers, and physicists isn't the same as actually knowing worth a damn. Sorry.[/QUOTE] As a forensic scientist I would like to ask one question. Why is a physicist, a man trained to deal with the forces of the world, examining the rubble of a building for supposed nano thermite? That's the job of a trained forensic scientist, that way we could trust it. Fuck if it was by a forensic scientist I would happily change my opinion and join the crowds demanding an investigation, but a physicist wouldn't follow evidence collection procedures, most likely wouldn't purify the compounds found. Also tons of thermite found eh? Let's have a look at the weight of both the towers and the weight of plane that hit the towers. Boeing 757-222: Mass: 57,840kg Fuel Capacity: 43490 litres Towers: Mass: 450,000,000 kg (from [url]http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml[/url]) Now for the fun part. Assuming that the entire plane, against all logic is made entirely of pure aluminium then we will have 2.14x10^6 moles of aluminium for the thermite reaction and 200,000 kg's of steel for it to react with (this is assuming that 200 tons were used in the construction of one tower and not the whole complex) So let's use our number in the reaction shall we! Fe2O3 + 2Al → 2Fe + Al2O3 + heat ? 2.14x10^6 /2 1.07x10^6 moles of corroded Iron required for a perfect reaction, now let's work out how much thermite products that would produce. As the reaction is one part corroded iron and 2 parts aluminium to produce the thermite reaction we would get 3 parts products. So! 2.14x10^6 Fe (2 parts Iron produce) = 120,000 Kg's (120 tons) 1.07x10^6 Al2O3 (1 part aluminium oxide produce) = 109,000 Kg's (109 tons) So overall there could be a maximum of 229,000 Kg's of thermite material at the collapse site. How much have you got? what 50 fucking tons of "xXSUPAH THERMITEXx" [B][U][U]There is a theoretical maximum assuming perfect circumstances (impossible) that 229 tons of thermite could be produced.[/U][/U][/B] TL;DR You're a retard EDIT: Yes, I am one determined mother fucker out for his pound of flesh.
I don't know why, but I get kind of annoyed when people say that 757s hit the towers, when they were 767s.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25139225]The researchers found studies done on nano-thermite as early as 2000 that showed the following: Here's the actual picture of the nano-thermite chips mentioned in the scientific document: [IMG_thumb]http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/9411/nanicq.jpg[/IMG_thumb] Keep trying to make me look like a fool all you want, it won't change anything.[/QUOTE]Yes, the same "scientific" document that hasn't been peer-reviewed, and seriously actually points to truther websites as evidence of a government conspiracy. While the energy garnered from a thermite reaction does exceed the energy from common explosives, you fail to notice the difference between burning and exploding, namely speed. RDX, PETN and so on explodes, thermite burns, albeit quicker than most things. Thermite is unsuitable for demolitions for that reason, at most it's used to cut up the debris for easier management, not to mention the problem of gravity with thermite. Some types can be sprayed on, yes, but they're still going to be subject to gravity; once the initial layer of steel melts, that thermite's going to fall off. Oh, but [i]nanothermite[/i], you say? Clues in the name, "nano" thermite. What you are showing there is in the millimetre and micrometre range. Nanometres are 1x10^-3 Nanothermite simply does not look like that. It looks like nanometre-scale small round particles of iron oxide and aluminium. You know what does look like that, though? [URL=http://filesmelt.com/][IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/Chip-Comparison.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25157896]Right...I linked this ALREADY and kinda went over this already too, but just for you... [IMG_thumb]http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=f67q6272583h86n4&size=largest[/IMG_thumb] 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.[/QUOTE]Steven E. Jones is a nutcase who's been discredited by his own university and the scientific community at large. He a theoretical physicist, unqualified in the field. Ah, but once again, we find ourselves responding to your irrelevant nitpicking. This is all moot. It could not have been placed without anyone noticing. The conspiracy itself is impossible by virtue of the many thousands of people who would have to be absolutely complicit with it. Explosives of any kind have been specifically debunked; they were neither seen, heard nor found, nor do any simulations done by reputable sources with actual qualifications in the field show explosives were possible. Key word: [b]explosives[/b], not mixtures of aircraft fuselage, paint and rust from the towers. As you slipped out of the WTC 7 discussion, I am going to assume you admit it was not caused by explosives. That leaves only fire. If WTC 7 could collapse by fire, why not the towers? For now, i'll leave you with this article [url]http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/naturvidenskab/chefredaktor_skrider_efter_kontroversiel_artikel_om_911[/url] Marie-Paule Pileni, the editor of The Open Chemical Physics Journal (published by Bentham Science Publishers) and someone specifically qualified in nanometric materials (you can see her qualifications here: [url]http://www.chemistry.gatech.edu/faculty/Pileni/[/url] and here: [url]http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/cv-pileni.htm[/url]) resigned after Dr. Jones' article was published as she was told nothing about it before it got published.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;25191888]Steven E. Jones is a nutcase who's been discredited by his own university and the scientific community at large. He a [b]theoretical physicist[/b], unqualified in the field.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.ancientlyre.com/images/gordon-freeman.gif[/img] Unqualified and against all odds...
[QUOTE=Explosions;25192112][img_thumb]http://www.ancientlyre.com/images/gordon-freeman.gif[/img_thumb] Unqualified and against all odds...[/QUOTE]I admit, I giggled a bit at that.
[QUOTE=GhostSonic;25190722]I don't know why, but I get kind of annoyed when people say that 757s hit the towers, when they were 767s.[/QUOTE] Then that gives us 136,078kg of plane to play with so we can now have around 500 tons of thermite. Either way a ridiculous amount of thermite could be at the site and still explainable by a reaction caused by a fuel air explosion from the planes fuel and exposed wiring.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.