Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 5 votes

9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop


  • Please log in to reply
763 replies to this topic

#691    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,312 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 12 November 2011 - 11:22 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 12 November 2011 - 10:06 PM, said:

no, you just completely made that up that statement.

I just showed you experiments which show that a few pounds of ordinary thermite can cut through steel beams. why didn't you watch the video, you are making a complete fool out of yourself.

!


That video is weak, and doesn't prove in any way that exlosives were used in the 9/11 attacks.Check out these photos where the beams had to be cut during cleanup operations.

One of the pieces of evidence conspiracy theorists use to say the buildings were brought down is a photo with something they interpret as being left behind by a thermite reaction.

<p align="center">Posted Image



There are a number of things they claim with this photo. One is the timeline. They say the photo has firemen which means this was during the rescue operation which only lasted two weeks. Why would they have fireman after the rescue operations? This suggests to them that the cut on the columns were made very close to September 11. The suggestion here is that it was done during the collapse.

They claim that the angle of the cut can't be created by a welding tool and/or is designed to have the building fall in a certain direction.The other is a yellow substance they claim is residue from a thermite reaction.




Posted Image

Note the yellow smoke and residue that is being generated by the ironworker, which the 9/11 conspiracist claimed was the result of a thermite explosion.

Posted Image

Posted Image


My link


No evidence of explosives were found at the WTC sites and the angled cuts on the beams were done by iron workers and the residue on the beams was generated by the ironworkers during the course of their work.



Edited by skyeagle409, 12 November 2011 - 11:42 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#692    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 13 November 2011 - 12:38 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 12 November 2011 - 11:22 PM, said:

No evidence of explosives were found at the WTC sites...

Actually, explosive residues and unignited fragments
 of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics were found at Ground Zero; just not by NIST, which admits it never bothered to test for explosives of any kind. Quoting from NIST's FAQ on the World Trade Center:



Quote

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST  did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

Source: http://911research.w..._FAQ_reply.html


#693    Matt121

Matt121

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 760 posts
  • Joined:17 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:U.S.

Posted 13 November 2011 - 02:04 AM

I'll never forget September 1st 2001....the day I threw that putter


#694    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,312 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 13 November 2011 - 08:12 PM

View PostScott G, on 13 November 2011 - 12:38 AM, said:

Actually, explosive residues and unignited fragments
 of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics were found at Ground Zero; just not by NIST, which admits it never bothered to test for explosives of any kind. Quoting from NIST's FAQ on the World Trade Center:

Source: http://911research.w..._FAQ_reply.html

Given the fact the WTC buildings collapsed only at the impact points, why would investigators feel compelled to check for planted explosives?

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 November 2011 - 08:12 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#695    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 13 November 2011 - 08:24 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 12 November 2011 - 11:22 PM, said:

That video is weak, and doesn't prove in any way that exlosives were used in the 9/11 attacks. <snip incoherence>
the video shows ordinary thermite cutting a steel beam, and yet you maintain that thermite cannot cut steel beams.

do you accept that thermite can cut a steel beam?

here is a tip to help you decide - the video shows a steel beam being cut with thermite.


#696    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 13 November 2011 - 08:29 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 13 November 2011 - 08:12 PM, said:

Given the fact the WTC buildings collapsed only at the impact points, why would investigators feel compelled to check for planted explosives?

I think the main page of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth gives a good helping of reasons as to why NIST should have looked into the possibility of explosives:
********
Posted Image


As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction   exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

    
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

  • Slow onset with large visible deformations
  • Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance  (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from  the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
  • Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
  • High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed
********

Edited by Scott G, 13 November 2011 - 08:29 PM.


#697    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,312 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 13 November 2011 - 08:43 PM

View PostScott G, on 13 November 2011 - 08:29 PM, said:

I think the main page of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth gives a good helping of reasons as to why NIST should have looked into the possibility of explosives:
********
Posted Image


As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction   exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

    
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

  • Slow onset with large visible deformations
  • Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance  (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from  the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
  • Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
  • High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed
********

Scott, you overlooked the facts and evidence that addressed the collapse of the WTC buildings. May I suggest that you go back and review the videos and other evidence that have been presented?You need to stay clear of those conspiracist websites because their imaginations tend to run wild. How many times have one of those sites, "Loose Change," changed its stories? They do not know what they are talking about and I will give you hint that you overlooked.

In regards to #11, the molten metal was determined to be tons of aluminum that made up the construction of the B-767, not molten iron as conspiracist incorrectly had thought.

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 November 2011 - 08:49 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#698    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,312 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 13 November 2011 - 08:52 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 13 November 2011 - 08:24 PM, said:

the video shows ordinary thermite cutting a steel beam, and yet you maintain that thermite cannot cut steel beams.

do you accept that thermite can cut a steel beam?

Not in the WTC buidlings.

Posted Image





BTW, how loud was the explosion in the demonstration?

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 November 2011 - 08:55 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#699    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 13 November 2011 - 09:13 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 13 November 2011 - 08:52 PM, said:

Not in the WTC buidlings.
so you do accept that ordinary thermite can cut through a steel beam?


#700    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 13 November 2011 - 10:06 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 13 November 2011 - 08:43 PM, said:

View PostScott G, on 13 November 2011 - 08:29 PM, said:

I think the main page of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth gives a good helping of reasons as to why NIST should have looked into the possibility of explosives:
********
Posted Image


As  seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction   exhibited  all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

    
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

  • Slow onset with large visible deformations
  • Asymmetrical  collapse which follows the path of least resistance  (laws of  conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from  the point  of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
  • Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
  • High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed
********

Scott, you overlooked the facts and evidence that addressed the collapse of the WTC buildings.

I disagree. In fact, I think the one who's overlooked the facts is you; it's all there in the above quote from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Of all the points put forward, you only argued against one of them, which I will deal below. As Morpheus said to Neo in the Matrix:
" I'm trying to free your mind... But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it."

View Postskyeagle409, on 13 November 2011 - 08:43 PM, said:

May I suggest that you go back and review the videos and other evidence that have been presented?

If you want me to look at something, present it to me, or at the very least link it; to do otherwise is to expect your opponent to present your own evidence for you.

View Postskyeagle409, on 13 November 2011 - 08:43 PM, said:

You need to stay clear of those conspiracist websites because their imaginations tend to run wild.

I'd say that this happens most with the official theory types; I've seen them work themselves into a lather trying to make sense of all the contradictions in the official story. One need go no further then listen to the official story experts to see what I mean:


View Postskyeagle409, on 13 November 2011 - 08:43 PM, said:

How many times have one of those sites, "Loose Change," changed its stories?

Not sure which loose change site you mean. I wasn't around in the first incarnation of the Loose Change forum. I -was- around for its second incarnation and participated there for a while. Unfortunately, a moderator there didn't like me and I was banned. It's not the most active of forums anyway, so it wasn't the end of the world for me. I definitely thought that the loose change videos were quite good.

View Postskyeagle409, on 13 November 2011 - 08:43 PM, said:

They do not know what they are talking about and I will give you hint that you overlooked.

In regards to #11, the molten metal was determined to be tons of aluminum that made up the construction of the B-767, not molten iron as conspiracist incorrectly had thought.

That theory's been debunked. Here's a good video debunking it:



#701    darkbreed

darkbreed

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,052 posts
  • Joined:04 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Argentina

Posted 14 November 2011 - 06:10 AM

All the direct and traditional evidence from the wtc remains, as well as the pentagon "peek-hole"-blast to the non-existing plane in the Pensylvania "crash" shows beyond any reasonable doubt that it was STAGED, PERFORMED and PRE-PLANNED with Governments knowledge and acceptance and NO "afghani terrorists" involved.

So just that alone makes it strange people still argue about a case that is so clear.

Then further on you got the fuller picture, that I presented in my brief 911 Mega Ritual video (that can be seen here: http://www.unexplain...howtopic=217303 ), that gives further evidence and clarification, showing that it was planned for at least DECADES before the towers were even built, with occult foundation behind it all - there simply is no doubt to what happened, who were behind it, was it was for and how it was done.

Truly a complex and mindbending plan but still got through.


www.PleiadianTalk.tk/ - Perspectives from a member of the Great White Brotherhood
American Atlantis Research - Documenting pre-colombian world migration and Atlantis-America
Increase your astral proection skills - Here at Unexplained Mysteries Forums!

#702    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 14 November 2011 - 10:01 AM

View Postdarkbreed, on 14 November 2011 - 06:10 AM, said:

All the direct and traditional evidence from the wtc remains, as well as the pentagon "peek-hole"-blast to the non-existing plane in the Pensylvania "crash" shows beyond any reasonable doubt that it was STAGED, PERFORMED and PRE-PLANNED with Governments knowledge and acceptance and NO "afghani terrorists" involved.

So just that alone makes it strange people still argue about a case that is so clear.

I think the main reason is that those who believe the official story just haven't done enough research. There was actually an article on the subject that I saw posted here once.

View Postdarkbreed, on 14 November 2011 - 06:10 AM, said:

Then further on you got the fuller picture, that I presented in my brief 911 Mega Ritual video (that can be seen here: http://www.unexplain...howtopic=217303 ), that gives further evidence and clarification, showing that it was planned for at least DECADES before the towers were even built, with occult foundation behind it all - there simply is no doubt to what happened, who were behind it, was it was for and how it was done.

Truly a complex and mindbending plan but still got through.


I admit that I'm somewhat more hesitant to believe that it was planned decades before the towers were even built. I have found many of your videos to be interesting, but I feel that I'd need more evidence before believing claims such as this one. Also.. the closed caption you have for that video.. I'm guessing it was some software that did it... pretty bad :-/. I could understand it without it though.


#703    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,312 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 November 2011 - 07:26 PM

View PostScott G, on 13 November 2011 - 10:06 PM, said:

I disagree. In fact, I think the one who's overlooked the facts is you; it's all there in the above quote from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Of all the points put forward, you only argued against one of them, which I will deal below. As Morpheus said to Neo in the Matrix:
" I'm trying to free your mind... But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it.

If you want me to look at something, present it to me, or at the very least link it; to do otherwise is to expect your opponent to present your own evidence for you.

I'd say that this happens most with the official theory types; I've seen them work themselves into a lather trying to make sense of all the contradictions in the official story. One need go no further then listen to the official story experts to see what I mean:

Not sure which loose change site you mean. I wasn't around in the first incarnation of the Loose Change forum. I -was- around for its second incarnation and participated there for a while. Unfortunately, a moderator there didn't like me and I was banned. It's not the most active of forums anyway, so it wasn't the end of the world for me. I definitely thought that the loose change videos were quite good.

That theory's been debunked. Here's a good video debunking it:


Once again, those sites are spewing nothing more than disinformation and misinformation. Check out the videos and photos that I have posted.To further add, no one heard any explosions that were attributed to bombs because what they heard was the breakup of the buildings. In Hawaii, there was a house whose roof was blown off during a hurricane and when it departed, the owner said it sounded like an explosion.

The collapse of the WTC buildings occurred only at the points of impacts and nothing to do with bombs.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 November 2011 - 07:30 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#704    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,312 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 November 2011 - 07:36 PM

View Postdarkbreed, on 14 November 2011 - 06:10 AM, said:

All the direct and traditional evidence from the wtc remains, as well as the pentagon "peek-hole"-blast to the non-existing plane in the Pensylvania "crash" shows beyond any reasonable doubt that it was STAGED, PERFORMED and PRE-PLANNED with Governments knowledge and acceptance and NO "afghani terrorists" involved.

So just that alone makes it strange people still argue about a case that is so clear.

Then further on you got the fuller picture, that I presented in my brief 911 Mega Ritual video (that can be seen here: http://www.unexplain...howtopic=217303 ), that gives further evidence and clarification, showing that it was planned for at least DECADES before the towers were even built, with occult foundation behind it all - there simply is no doubt to what happened, who were behind it, was it was for and how it was done.

Truly a complex and mindbending plan but still got through.


For what purpose would the government have for doing such a thing?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#705    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 18,020 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 15 November 2011 - 02:56 PM

I see If I watch the Matrix then I will know where all the data came from in some peoples theroy on the WTC destruction ?
Hum, Now I see a trend developing,too much MOVIE research to back ones data instead of actual facts and proof.
Maybe one could bring to the table some real proof of anything other than  Two Aircraft slamming into the towers that terrifing day.
Were the lifes of all the people that were killed made up?

This is a Work in Progress!




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users