Conspiracy Theory Proof 9/11 was an Inside Job?

[Coledinho]

Oh cool!

Did you happen to read that document by those other experts the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)?

Their book is free . . .

Yes and there conspiracy theories are even nuttier then the ones you say I believe

 

[Kellythatsit]

Yes and there conspiracy theories are even nuttier then the ones those who dont believe proclaim

To the uninformed perhaps.

Do yourself a favour - read it and know the truth

 

[Daytripper]

Everyone knows Al Qaeda did it and it was terrorists. Im not disputing that. Im saying the government knew what was happening and didnt prevent it.

But you're saying they blew up WTC7, aren't you?

 

[Kellythatsit]

Some evidence re: WTC

* Ground Zero burning for months at high temperature (thermite)
* Steel buildings have never collapsed from harder/longer burning fires, let alone free fall of WTC127.
* Jet fuel cannot burn at a temperature to melt steel.
* Both fireballs from planes in WTC12 extinguished quickly (black smoke, fire suffocated).
* Numerous video/audio and firemen accounts of bomb detonation in basement, and timed demolition explosions in floors.
* Molten steel flowing from towers.
* WTC12 disintegrated into utter dust and small shards (ie, explosions)
* Footprint of WTC12 had shifted many inches (ie, basement bomb)

Some evidence re: Pentagon

* Impact hole dimensions vs Boeing dimensions
* Impact hole a 'perfect' circle thru C, D, E concrete walls.
* "Plane vaporized human remains found" (impossible)
* Most fortified place with CCTV cameras, all footage confiscated/destroyed, none released showing Boeing impact
* Plane remains found are identical to the A3-Skywarrior drone military model. image
* Pentagon rings/exit hole are consistent with missile rings/exit holes (see Bosnia)
* Pictures tell a thousand words...

Ie...the expanse of the Boeing supposedly vaporizing within contact of the length of that first E wall, yet turned into a small hard enough projectile puncturing 'perfectly' thru two more walls. Only a missile can do that.

---Haven't touched on Shanksville.

Nice list, did you have anything that hasn't already been debunked on this thread?

Or shall we just recreate the wheel . . . ?

 

[Coledinho]

But you're saying they blew up WTC7, aren't you?

Al Qaeda got the ball onto the green. The government just brought out the putter and put it in the hole

 

[exe ex machina]

re: kellythatsit.....debunked lol

whats the 'debunk' for a plane vaporizing but human remains existing?
what's the 'debunk' for ground zero burning for months?

etc

 

[Coledinho]

Nice list, did you have anything that hasn't already been debunked on this thread?

Or shall we just recreate the wheel . . . ?

Debunking a conspiracy theory with another conspiracy theory leads to this circle does it not. Surely instead of having a conspiracy I dont know the government should come out and well answer the questions being asked for a change.

Just a crazy thought

 

[exe ex machina]

Actually, the true dynamics at play are....the govt putting up a story and the truthers debunking it. Not the other way around.

 

[Dean3]

what's the 'debunk' for ground zero burning for months?

etc

Here's a very good explanation for that:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1634-ground-zeros-fires-still-burning.html

But I expect you will prefer to believe your totally unsubstantiated "theory".

 

[exe ex machina]

That link confirms ground zero was burning for months at high temperatures.

The point is -- that it was burning for months at high temperatures is due to the nature of the compounds at play. Jet fuel had evaporated within 20-40 mins after plane impact. And jet fuel cannot burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel. Only substances like thermite can create a temperature hot enough to melt steel and thus end up creating a hot burning pile that lasts for months.

Almost 12 weeks after the terrorist atrocity at New York's World Trade Center, there is at least one fire still burning in the rubble - it is the longest-burning structural fire in history.

Deputy Chief Charles Blaich of the New York City Fire Department would not predict when the last fire might be extinguished. But compared to the situation at the end of September, when aerial thermal images showed the whole of Ground Zero to be a hot spot, conditions today are much safer for the workers clearing the rubble.

 

[Dean3]

Perhaps read to the end of the article? Or have you just quoted the only part of it that appears to concur with your pre-arranged theory?

Re jet fuel "melting steel". Nobody has suggested that steel was "melted" as you put it. The ignited jet fuel and fires were sufficient to compromise the structural integrity of the steel. That is all that is needed. Very, very different from "melting".

 

[exe ex machina]

What exactly are you attempting to 'debunk' about ground zero? It did burn at high temperatures for a long long time. As the article said, from 9/11 to 9/30 the WHOLE ground zero was still burning and way too much to be safe. Then from there for another 8 weeks slowly bit by bit they extinguished portions of it.

There's nothing else in the article.

Read this: http://worldaerodata.com/forum/read.php?5,493

 

[Dean3]

There's nothing else in the article.

Maybe you missed this part:

"Tinsley says there are several reasons for the longevity of the fire: "First, this is not a typical fire by any means. The combustible debris is mixed with twisted steel in a mass that covers 17 acres, and may be 50 metres deep. This is the one all future fire scenes will be measured against."

The other reasons are human. For nearly three weeks, Tinsley says, city officials insisted that work at Ground Zero was a rescue operation, meaning it would have been inappropriate to flood the rubble with water. As a result, he says, "the fires had a 17-day head start when we arrived."

And there is the issue of human remains. These are still being found and removed and, since the fires are not threatening any property or lives, they are being allowed to burn on."

 

[exe ex machina]

i didnt miss that part, that part says nothing.

here are some far more instructive posts....

First of all, there were molten metal at ground zero so the steel was not weakened, it melted. Second, an intense fire cannot be produced under rubble where there is no oxygen so your argument that potential energy made that intense fire is ridiculous. Therefore, thermate has been used with explosives to bring that building down.

I have checked a couple sources regarding the temp. for burning JET A fuel (standard in the US). The open air burning temp is less than 350 C. I think you would have to consider the WTC open air burning. Max temp is achieved only with an optimum mixture of air and fuel producing no smoke. Smoke is a sign of oxygen deprivation with results in lower temperatures. The WTC steel was tested by UL at 2000 C and retained it's specification. It is not likely that an open air burn for less than 50 minutes could have caused enough deformation to result in collapse.

Not a pleasant conclusion I'm afraid, but hey science is science.

No matter if it weakens it or not:
1. No steel building other than the WTC has ever collapsed due to any fire of any sort.
2. A certain temperature may weaken the iron, but it is incapable of melting any of it o matter how large or or how small.

Jet A is the same stuff burned in conventional steel wall heaters. In an open-air office fire such as that at WTC (called a "dirty burn"winking smiley kerosene or any hydrocarbon will burn at around 500-700F (260C to 371C). The FEMA report on 911 said that the jet fuel burned off after a few minutes and the fires from the office furniture and carpets were about 560F (293C) The special structural steel of the WTC has over 98% of its strength at those temperatures, and the WTC was built to hold 5 times its load.

In a "controlled burn" (where oxygen and fuel are regulated in an optimal mix), jet fuel will reach a maximum temperature of 1800F(982C), which is still not anywhere near the temperature required to weaken the steel girders of a building to the point that the entire building plummeted to the ground. Yet molten steel was reported below the towers, suggesting that a very powerful "fuel" was used, set to burn or explode BELOW the building, not at its top. Thermite, an HTA (high-temperature accelerant) typically used in military operations, would have been able to liquefy the steel. Thermite can reach a temperature of 4500F (2482C) in 2 seconds, and steel begins to melt at 2750F (1510C).

I think it's fairly safe to say that Science, including the all-important PHYSICS, is on the side of those who question the official account.

The twin towers collapsed when the fires were burning out - the smoke was getting less and less and all reports say that the fires were either being brought under control, or were burning themselves out.
If the towers had collapsed straight after the impact, i don't think this debate would even be going on. the fact that molten steel/metal can be seen dripping from the corner of WTC1 minutes before the collapse started is a red flag. a large part of the jet fuel was consumed in the initial fireball - that is obvious from the vids.

Moving on, the are countless eyewitness accounts all saying roughly the same thing - molten steel under the rubble. EVEN under WTC7, which was never even hit by a plane, sustained only minor (relatively) damage and came down HOURS after the towers had themselves collapsed.

WTC7 experienced 2.25 seconds of free-fall (approximately 8 storeys worth), something which is PHYSICALLY impossible if there is any kind of resistance, which there would be if the columns weren't all cut within miliseconds of each other.

I draw your attention to: [youtube]5d5iIoCiI8g[/youtube]
watch this, and then tell me that it was Jet fuel that brought down the buildings.

I have to say.
Whether the steel melted, changed it's crystal make-up, broke or wtf ever. This would not have dropped the entire building...Sky scrapers don't just get thrown together they have a very strict building code. One of which relies on the build being able to take impacts from flying objects....When the steel at the point of impact was heated (btw jet fuel burns at 980 deg. Celsius in a controlled scenario) it may have been heated enough for enough amount of time to change its crystal structure but that would not have weaken the massive steel structure below or above it. In other words at the point of impact what should have happened is the same thing that happens when you chop down a tree....it would have feel to the side. that is simple physics my friend. Also, to mention the pools of melted metal, STILL glowing red hot weeks after the initial collapse. Are you trying to say that jet flue burns hot enough and long enough to melt enough metal to from pools of lava like liquids to last a at least aw eek. these were found by fire fighters when they were removing ruble searching for bodies. Now I do not give a **** but seriously, come on....are we all ****ing ******s? I mean i know at least half of us are....but shit. why do we let our government play these bullshit trick on us like this. go back and check out how every war has started since WWI. it's all bullshit! go read. look shit up. watch the zietgieghst. become enlightened. and just to clear this last shit up. its not a conspericy theory....its god damn fact laying on the floor in front of you. the only conspericy theory is thw bullshit the government fed us so we would want to go invade the middle east and implant our own seeds of governmental dominance so we can have a foothold on that economy as well. sorry it just pisses me off when stupid people talk. bye.

A good article i just saw in that thread that is worth reading:

http://davidraygriffin.com/articles/was-america-attacked-by-muslims-on-911/

Conclusion

All the proffered evidence that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11, when subjected to critical scrutiny, appears to have been fabricated. If that is determined indeed to be the case, the implications would be enormous. Discovering and prosecuting the true perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks would obviously be important. The most immediate consequence, however, should be to reverse those attitudes and policies that have been based on the assumption that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11.

.

 

[Dean3]

A very typical truther reply. Ignore first hand evidence from someone on the ground at the scene, and pile on a whole heap of junk from a truther site that has already been debunked many times over.

Carry on!

 

[exe ex machina]

Definitive.

[youtube]PwqLu8ZXIX0[/youtube]
[youtube]5d5iIoCiI8g[/youtube]
[youtube]tejFUDlV81w[/youtube]
[youtube]VvQDFV1HINw[/youtube]
[youtube]ww8hBFNY8jk[/youtube]
[youtube]dgZLXI3whGA[/youtube]
[youtube]9YRUso7Nf3s[/youtube]

 

[SaintsSeptember]

That link confirms ground zero was burning for months at high temperatures.

The point is -- that it was burning for months at high temperatures is due to the nature of the compounds at play. Jet fuel had evaporated within 20-40 mins after plane impact. And jet fuel cannot burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel. Only substances like thermite can create a temperature hot enough to melt steel and thus end up creating a hot burning pile that lasts for months.

Yet the original blast furnaces used to smelt iron, used charcoal as a fuel, before moving on to Coke, ( Coal type, not the drink or the drug ). How is it so?

 

[rayven]

There is no doubt those towers were brought down, what is in doubt is why.

Personaly I see merit if this is a decision taken at the time because of the logistics involved in dealing with these towers with planes holes in them.

One hell of an attack on your psyche looking at them everyday with plane holes in them, they were truthfully probably going to have to come down and wern't much good to anyone.

For instance if they were repaired (or could be) who pays? how much? how long? you had an oppotunity to save so much shit when everyone was evactuated, save arguing and beuracratic bullshit.

I do know that the fire didn't do what they said it did, anyone prepared to do any study knows that. But the question is why?
More lives have been lost in the pursuit of money by buisnessmen before, so if anyone wants to point to the lives lost as evidence then they are clutching at straws.

Some talk about an insurance job...

It will come out one day, but not in our lifetime, presumably.

 

[Daytripper]

There is no doubt those towers were brought down,

Care to explain how then, genius.

 

[maryjames]

Sorry - this thread is moving pretty quickly, but because I think that all these 9/11 conspiracies are a complete load of bs - is someone suggesting I should read a book by former WWF wrestler Jesse Ventura to get the truth?!

Am I the only one seeing the irony there?

Italy 1980 a bomb went of and slaughtered 85 people in Bologna. Grand Master of the mason lodge P2, Licio Gelli, the former agent of SISMI Francesco Pazienza, and the military secret service officers Pietro Musumeci and Giuseppe Belmonte were convicted of hampering the investigation. P2 Freemason's secret service created the bombing.. The point is these people in secret services can and do shit like this when needed..911 is no different except they planned it very well but got away with it..The people who created 911 now have made trillions on trillions in resources and will continue this so called war on terror for the next 10 years.. War never stops you noticed that? The same Families profit every time over the Centuries..

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

Daytripper give up man, these guys will never change there mind even when the every rebuttal to their arguments are posted. I bet they haven't even read the 9/11 report, they just go on youtube and type 9/11 truth and paste videos all day.

 

[CamTinley]

I think we will all just have to agree to disagree. This really isn't going anywhere. If a clear photograph of a piece of an AA plane on the lawn and over 100 eye witnesses saying an AA jet hit the pentagon doesn't convince you it happened then nothing will. There really is no point to this thread, because the discussion leads no where.

That "piece of AA plane" is the most fake piece of planted evidence I've ever seen.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

That "piece of AA plane" is the most fake piece of planted evidence I've ever seen.

Exhibit 1: CamTinley

Now we have FBI agents planting random bits of a plane on the grass in front of thousands of people.You are severely disconnected from reality. Have a good day.

 

[TheStinger]

Serious question - What are the odds of all of the main supporting struts that were holding the buildings together giving way at exactly the same time causing the top 20 or so floors to compact directly onto the rest of the building, which then resulted in the impact cascade which ultimately brought the entire building down? Twice!

I can understand one girder or maybe two on the main impact side giving way first, causing the top of the building to fall sideways, maybe taking out another 20 or so floors due to the impact and possibly taking out a whole side of a building. But not the entire building.

And why did the 2nd tower hit lose it's structural integrity first? Especially seeings as it was hit off center as well. It was the same size plane with equitable amounts of fuel on board as the first plane, so what happened there?

I'm not saying I believe they were brought down by explosives or a conspiracy or whatever, but these are real questions that no amount of science and mathematical trickery can really explain to a logical extent. It makes very little sense that the buildings collapsed as they did due to the damage caused by he planes.

But they did. So either it was the most unbelievable set of circumstances that occured twice within a half hour of each other or there is something else there.

Who knows for absolute sure?

 

[nut]

Serious question - What are the odds of all of the main supporting struts that were holding the buildings together giving way at exactly the same time causing the top 20 or so floors to compact directly onto the rest of the building, which then resulted in the impact cascade which ultimately brought the entire building down? Twice!

I can understand one girder or maybe two on the main impact side giving way first, causing the top of the building to fall sideways, maybe taking out another 20 or so floors due to the impact and possibly taking out a whole side of a building. But not the entire building.

And why did the 2nd tower hit lose it's structural integrity first? Especially seeings as it was hit off center as well. It was the same size plane with equitable amounts of fuel on board as the first plane, so what happened there?

I'm not saying I believe they were brought down by explosives or a conspiracy or whatever, but these are real questions that no amount of science and mathematical trickery can really explain to a logical extent. It makes very little sense that the buildings collapsed as they did due to the damage caused by he planes.

But they did. So either it was the most unbelievable set of circumstances that occured twice within a half hour of each other or there is something else there.

Who knows for absolute sure?

or that they are the only buildeings to collapse from fire....