Conspiracy Theories

[SEC=UGA]

For fun, I just googled "Thermite Demolition"... This compound is not used in demolition, why would they all of a sudden use an unproven compound to collpase a building?

[delusions of grandeur]

Perhaps we could take the issues one at a time, using the preferred language of those who believe 9/11 was an inside job?

 

Question 1: How did parts of aircraft get scattered around the Pentagon so quickly after the Cruise missile hit it?

That is a good valid question, but unfortunately not one anyone can say with any degree of certainty about. For all I know they said "Hey Joe, go throw these scraps in the yard or I'll freakin' kill you"... But our goal is not to make assumptions about highly debatable things like this...

 

This is the reason I'm not a huge fan of "Loose Change" being the popular documentary for the "truth" movement. It makes far too many assumptions to the point of discrediting itself, rather than sticking to just examining the questions and inconsistencies of the official story (there are plenty of them)

 

My main question is how the charges would have been set to perform a controlled demolition of these buildings. One would have to place the shape charges against the structural members. In order to do this one would have to remove sheet rock, masonry, piping, etc... Why did no one notice that the wall of their office was missing and report such an event?

A short part from 9/11 Mysteries (doesn't mention the part that bomb-sniffing dogs were removed 5 days prior to 9/11.)

[delusions of grandeur]

For fun, I just googled "Thermite Demolition"... This compound is not used in demolition, why would they all of a sudden use an unproven compound to collpase a building?

Thermate actually (used by the military and can cut steel like butter), and this isn't exactly your typical small-scale demolition.

Edited April 26, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[peepinmofo]

Tell me how you know other buildings have burned hotter and longer. Google Windsor tower

 

Were any of said buildings of the same design and of the same size? Not exactly the same size, but thats not the point. Point is fire burned longer and the building didnt fall.

 

Can you guarantee that the steel used in these other buildings was of the same tensile strength, gauge, origin as the steel in the WTC buildings? No, but the WTC were reinforced to wuthstand plane impact, so I would assume them to be much stronger than most other buildings that arent built the same way.

 

Did these buildings experinece the impact of a 100+ ton projectile moving at a couple/few hundred miles per hour hit it. The disruption, shaking, swaying from this alone could have caused massive shock to the steel frame, not just on the floort where it hit but for many floors due to the resonance of the impact. Fine, but why didnt the building fall left or right? Why did it fall straight down? WTC7 specifically.

 

My main question is how the charges would have been set to perform a controlled demolition of these buildings. One would have to place the shape charges against the structural members. In order to do this one would have to remove sheet rock, masonry, piping, etc... Why did no one notice that the wall of their office was missing and report such an event? There was a video I watched of how thermite/thermate could be simply painted on without the person even knowing what it was they were doing.

 

You also argue that the fire would have been starved of oxygen, please explain this to me... The building is only a few hundred feet above sea level with winds at elevation of 20 to 50 mph, it would be like a blast furnace up there. Upon impact, the fuel that burned ate up all the oxygen in the building. Which building is only a few hundred feet above? WTC7? Im not saying that fire was oxygen starved, those were in WTC1 and 2. Admittedly, I got that info from the videos I have seen.

Some answers above. Google Windsor tower. Chances are, the buildings I am talking about were not built as WELL as WTC for the simple purpose of what the buildings were designed for. Watch the fires burning on youtube. The buildings themselves burned almost completely. However, the STRUCTURE was left standing.

[SEC=UGA]

Thermate actually (used by the military and can cut steel like butter), and this isn't exactly your typical small-scale demolition.

 

Then why do all of the professionals use copper shape charges rather than thermite on LARGE scale demolition?

[delusions of grandeur]

Then why do all of the professionals use copper shape charges rather than thermite on LARGE scale demolition?

Maybe they don't have access to thermate

 

Don't know, but in answer to your previous question, it's not unproven. The military uses it to cut through armor.

 

Not really an argument that I care to get into though, because it's far from a smoking gun.

Edited April 26, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[peepinmofo]

Perhaps we could take the issues one at a time, using the preferred language of those who believe 9/11 was an inside job?

 

Question 1: How did parts of aircraft get scattered around the Pentagon so quickly after the Cruise missile hit it?

I sent this question to a buddy of mine who has researched this much more than I have. His reponse:

 

There weren’t any parts of an aircraft other than one “photo perfect” shot. Also, the pentagon, military, etc were all doing an exercise on that same day in which what happened in real life (9/11) was taking place in their exercise. One of the places that would be attacked during the fake exercise was the Pentagon. They even brought in items to help setup the stage so to speak, including the famous diesel generator which produced lots of black smoke when it was set on fire. Of course we were told it got hit by the plane and that’s how it got set on fire in the first place. This, in my opinion is why so much black smoke came from the site. This generator was a stage piece for the exercise and “by chance” of course, happened to catch on fire and produce lots of perfectly timed dark smoke.

 

It is believed that parts of the missile or small jet which is really what hit the Pentagon were covered up and put into that large wooden crate thing and covered over with a tarp and carried away by a bunch of men. There’s photos of this all over the internet and nobody has come forward to this day to say what was inside.

 

Here’s a picture of the actual impact site at the Pentagon. Ask your friend where the wing marks, rear stabilizer marks, and engine marks are. The twin towers have all of these impact marks. Also ask them where are the wheels, engines, wings, tail, etc in any pictures they’ve even seen of the Pentagon crash site. There are none. (these pics are in email and I would be more than happy to email them to you if you want)

[wiegie]

I'm so sick of hearing about Occam's Razor.

I'll bet you are!

 

 

What Az has not revealed though is that the introduction of Occam's Razor into an argument is part of a giant conspiracy to get lunatics to "accidentally" cut themselves while shaving.

[Azazello1313]

I sent this question to a buddy of mine who has researched this much more than I have. His reponse:

 

There weren’t any parts of an aircraft other than one “photo perfect” shot. Also, the pentagon, military, etc were all doing an exercise on that same day in which what happened in real life (9/11) was taking place in their exercise. One of the places that would be attacked during the fake exercise was the Pentagon. They even brought in items to help setup the stage so to speak, including the famous diesel generator which produced lots of black smoke when it was set on fire. Of course we were told it got hit by the plane and that’s how it got set on fire in the first place. This, in my opinion is why so much black smoke came from the site. This generator was a stage piece for the exercise and “by chance” of course, happened to catch on fire and produce lots of perfectly timed dark smoke.

 

It is believed that parts of the missile or small jet which is really what hit the Pentagon were covered up and put into that large wooden crate thing and covered over with a tarp and carried away by a bunch of men. There’s photos of this all over the internet and nobody has come forward to this day to say what was inside.

 

Here’s a picture of the actual impact site at the Pentagon. Ask your friend where the wing marks, rear stabilizer marks, and engine marks are. The twin towers have all of these impact marks. Also ask them where are the wheels, engines, wings, tail, etc in any pictures they’ve even seen of the Pentagon crash site. There are none. (these pics are in email and I would be more than happy to email them to you if you want)

 

 

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

 

pretty elaborate "stage exercise"!

[bushwacked]

It's odd workers in the WTC worked around this stuff for days leading up to 9-11 without saying anything.

[peepinmofo]

 

 

 

pretty elaborate "stage exercise"!

 

A quick search of that name brought me here: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/april07...ytim2_32306.php

 

A little blurb from this is as follows:

Then there is the Blast expert in the PM article, Allyn E. Kilsheimer, who said "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

 

One says the plane turned to liquid, that`s why there is no wreckage, and the other held parts of the crew`s uniform and body parts in his hand?

 

What?

 

These guys needed to get on the same page before being interviewed for Popular Mechanics.

 

The author of that PM article by the way is not named, at least on the published Web story.

 

Finally, if Kilsheimer did hold parts of uniforms, then they easily could have come from the poor unfortunate people inside the building, I mean we are talking about the Pentagon.

 

Everyone watching the news that day remembers that the grass in front of the Pentagon showed no burn marks, no wreckage, many of the windows where the wings would have struck the building are unbroken. They were made of special glass, but a 757 going 500 MPH into a building is a force that one could hardly imagine. Like most airplanes, the 757 carries its fuel in its wings, and the plane`s wingspan is 125 feet, so why was the fire and damage at the Pentagon confined to such a small area?

 

As a person who has been researching airplane crash sites for almost twenty years, I have visited many locations where a plane struck the earth at several hundred miles an hour. One such aircraft is an F-89 Scorpion jet fighter that crashed east of Cloverdale, Oregon one evening in the late 1950`s. The pilot ejected, and the impact from the plane striking the ground at high speed was so profound, that it interrupted a high school basketball game and sent people running outside to see what had happened. That plane has a wing in the wreckage field that is almost complete, and still has a moving aileron. I originally wrote a story about this crash site for the Tillamook Headlight Herald Newspaper in 1994.

 

My point is that even high-speed crashes leave big pieces of wreckage. You can see things in the aftermath of a crash like luggage, pieces of the fuselage, and heavy machinery-type parts that comprise the plane. Titanium parts in the jet engine construction of a 757 are nearly indestructible. I have people researching the available photos who can specifically identify 757 parts. This is too big of a subject to simply blow off.

 

That whole article is actually a pretty good read.

[SEC=UGA]

With regard to the Windsor Tower in Madrid:

1. Around midnight, on Saturday, February 12, 2005, a fire was detected on the 21st floor. The fire spread quickly throughout the entire building, leading to the collapse of the outermost, steel parts of the upper floors

 

2. It was a very solid building, with a central core of reinforced concrete that resisted the high temperatures of the fire without collapsing

 

The WTC towers did not have this same type central core to hold the building up. The windsor was 32 stories, 29 above ground. The windosr was not penetrated from the side by an airplane. The windsor fire was 8 floors below the top, the WTC were damaged 30 from the top (you had 30 floors of weight without a bearing falling onto the floors below.)

 

Really what it comes down to is we are dealing with two different types of construction, each of which reacted differently to the fires.

[peepinmofo]

With regard to the Windsor Tower in Madrid:

1. Around midnight, on Saturday, February 12, 2005, a fire was detected on the 21st floor. The fire spread quickly throughout the entire building, leading to the collapse of the outermost, steel parts of the upper floors

 

2. It was a very solid building, with a central core of reinforced concrete that resisted the high temperatures of the fire without collapsing

 

The WTC towers did not have this same type central core to hold the building up. The windsor was 32 stories, 29 above ground. The windosr was not penetrated from the side by an airplane. The windsor fire was 8 floors below the top, the WTC were damaged 30 from the top (you had 30 floors of weight without a bearing falling onto the floors below.)

 

Really what it comes down to is we are dealing with two different types of construction, each of which reacted differently to the fires.

 

Put towers 1 and 2 aside. Lets talk about WTC7. No plane hit that. Debris? Sure. Major fires? Nope. That building completely dropped without any resistance.

[delusions of grandeur]

With regard to the Windsor Tower in Madrid:

1. Around midnight, on Saturday, February 12, 2005, a fire was detected on the 21st floor. The fire spread quickly throughout the entire building, leading to the collapse of the outermost, steel parts of the upper floors

 

2. It was a very solid building, with a central core of reinforced concrete that resisted the high temperatures of the fire without collapsing

 

The WTC towers did not have this same type central core to hold the building up. The windsor was 32 stories, 29 above ground. The windosr was not penetrated from the side by an airplane. The windsor fire was 8 floors below the top, the WTC were damaged 30 from the top (you had 30 floors of weight without a bearing falling onto the floors below.)

 

Really what it comes down to is we are dealing with two different types of construction, each of which reacted differently to the fires.

Watch starting at 6:53 in, or 10:30 if you just want to get to the part about the core.

 

It absolutely had a supporting core that can even be seen in one of the shots of the towers falling.

 

(Edit: Also have to ask, do you not see any issue with the fact that the WTC buildings met near zero resistance? Collapse I can understand. That I can't.)

Edited April 26, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[peepinmofo]

I think at this point, believe what you want. I know what I want to believe, and that is simply that what we were told is complete BS. Im not an expert on the subject, and dont pretend to be. If you want to believe that the towers were hit by terrorists, and thats that, so be it. But as pointed out earlier, look how our lives have changed - Patriot Act, TSA groping, oil prices, etc.

 

If you want to do your own research, go for it. Or if you are happy with the complete BS lie we were told, then go on living that way.

[bpwallace49]

Watch starting at 6:53 in, or 10:30 if you just want to get to the part about the core.

 

It absolutely had a supporting core that can even be seen in one of the shots of the towers falling.

 

I believe he said " not the same type" not "there was no inner core at all".

 

comparing those two really is apples to oranges. Plus he is in construction and might have juuuuust a wee bit more background when it comes to stuff like this.

[delusions of grandeur]

I believe he said " not the same type" not "there was no inner core at all".

 

comparing those two really is apples to oranges. Plus he is in construction and might have juuuuust a wee bit more background when it comes to stuff like this.

 

My bad, misread that, but I'm really not trying to act like I know about it like he does. I'm very happy to have credible people like him take the time to examine these claims

[Azazello1313]

I know what I want to believe

 

yup

[peepinmofo]

yup

All I hear is you snoring...

[Azazello1313]

outline of the NIST report on wtc 7

[matt770]

I think at this point, believe what you want.

 

If you want to do your own research, go for it. Or if you are happy with the complete BS lie we were told, then go on living that way.

Pretty much how I feel. I believed the official line up until now, but the things I'm seeing don't add up. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a neat and tidy explanation. I do feel for the victims' families who can't put it to rest though. If it were me, I would do my best to learn to accept it and move on rather than trying to pin down the right people to blame. Life is too short. But I know that's easier said than done for most. I do have a problem with the smug and condescending approach some people take when stating their case, as if they can really be 100% sure. Bottom line for me is I have questions, and nothing I've seen here or elsewhere has answered them to my satisfaction (that is not an invite for more youtube links, thanks. )

[wiegie]

Assuming it is a big conspiracy, can somebody explan why WTC#7 was also destroyed? Did the people behind the conspiracy think that destroying WTC1 and WTC2 and part of the Pentagon wouldn't be enough to convince people to go along with whatever nefarious plans the conspirators had in mind?

 

I can just imagine Joe Schmoe sitting at home going "Well, WTC1 and WTC2 getting destroyed were bad, but now that they also took out WTC7, I am REALLY mad."

[bushwacked]

Assuming it is a big conspiracy, can somebody explan why WTC#7 was also destroyed?

 

As a ruse to keep the herd confused. Duh.

[BeeR]

I'm so sick of hearing about Occam's Razor. It's the in term to use when you have cannot adequately win an argument.

I owe you a beer for saying that, thx. I might not go quite as far as that, but also sick of it.

 

As for the hard-core skeptics vs the hard-core "tinfoil hat" group, I think both would be best served to keep an open mind. No, every big tradegy or whatever doesn't have some movie-worthy deep dark secret thing going on, but anyone who thinks the gov't isn't capable of such things is incredibly naive and it's exactly how they have gotten away with God only knows how much for many many years.

[SEC=UGA]

Assuming it is a big conspiracy, can somebody explan why WTC#7 was also destroyed? Did the people behind the conspiracy think that destroying WTC1 and WTC2 and part of the Pentagon wouldn't be enough to convince people to go along with whatever nefarious plans the conspirators had in mind?

 

I can just imagine Joe Schmoe sitting at home going "Well, WTC1 and WTC2 getting destroyed were bad, but now that they also took out WTC7, I am REALLY mad."

 

Insurance money, of course.