Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Persia

9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop

764 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

TK0001

care to prove that cutter charges of unknown pressure work, half a mile up in the air would knock people on the ground off their feet and shatter windows in the vicinity. I didn't think so, because your assertion is absurd.

Are you saying explosives don't make noise over a certain height?

Also, how high do you think the towers were, exactly? Half a mile? WTF?

And MY assertion is absurd? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

if there was thermal cutter charge 18 floors above the impact zone on the corner columns, then what would you expect it to look like? why wouldn't you expect it to look like this:

IF there were "cutter charges" present, I wouldn't expect to see them blowing out a window several feet (at least) away from the corner of the building where the support columns that you are presumably claiming are being "cut" are located. The "flash" is clearly occurring some distance away from the corner column(s).

Maybe you can explain why "cutter charges" intended, as you speculate, to "cut" the outer corner support columns are expelling their "smoke" so far away from the actual corner of the building where the actual corner support columns are...?

resulting in this:

wtcimage2.jpg

Except that image does not show that the columns have been cut by a "cutter charge" or seemingly by anything. They appear to be still intact, but severely buckled / deformed as I point out in my previous post above.

you said "there is no evidence of chemical explosions".

And he's right, in as far as these pieces of video you have supplied are concerned.

the above is evidence.

Evidence, yes... but not of "cutter charges" or other explosives as you seem to think it is.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

If you are going to plant explosives, you are going to do so at ground level and then, detonate the explosives at the same time.

That would not be conducive to creating the appearance that planes caused collapse.

I’m not sure you have got your head around the theory, skyeagle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish
Evidence, yes... but not of "cutter charges" or other explosives as you seem to think it is.

why is it not evidence ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

That would not be conducive to creating the appearance that planes caused collapse.

I'm not sure you have got your head around the theory, skyeagle.

Basically, what I am saying is, why use explosives at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TK0001

Basically, what I am saying is, why use explosives at all?

Conversely, why fly planes into buildings already wired up with explosives?

Makes utterly no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Basically, what I am saying is, why use explosives at all?

To make the buildings collapse.

Conversely, why fly planes into buildings already wired up with explosives?

To make it look like the planes caused collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Conversely, why fly planes into buildings already wired up with explosives?

Makes utterly no sense.

It doesn't make any sense at all and why I don't understand why there are those who are claiming that the 911 attack was an inside job when the facts say otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

To make the buildings collapse.

But why? There is no evidence that explosives were used.

To make it look like the planes caused collapse.

That doesn't make any sense at all when all of the evidence points toward a terrorist attack as officially reported. No one planted explosives within the WTC buildings..

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

But why?

to create the transforming event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish
No one planted explosives within the WTC buildings.
nanothermite was found in the wtc dust capable of producing steel melting temperatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

to create the transforming event.

That is what the Arab terrorist wanted by slamming aircraft into buildings during the 911 attacks, not our government

nanothermite was found in the wtc dust capable of producing steel melting temperatures.

That does not indicate that explosives were used.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

But why? There is no evidence that explosives were used.

That doesn't make any sense at all when all of the evidence points toward a terrorist attack as officially reported. No one planted explosives within the WTC buildings..

There is all the evidence that should be expected of a demolition.

The full body of evidence is suggestive of a false flag attack.

Evidence of a damage/fire initiated collapse is conspicuous by its absence.

A simple terrorist attack relies on selective use of the full evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101
why is it not evidence ?

Because what you are saying is happening is not shown in the video you are saying is evidence.

- Your so-called "flash" happens far enough away from the corner columns as to, if nothing else, make one wonder why the "cutter charges" would be expelling their smoke through a window or other opening in the side of the building several feet away from where you are saying the "cutter charges" are allegedly "cutting";

- The corner columns that you say are being "cut" by the "cutter charges" are clearly shown in the video to be apparently un-cut;

- There are explanations for the "flash" and the "knuckle" that do not rely on the existence of covert "cutter charges" that apparently work from across the room, or actually, don't work at all, but make enough smoke or at the very least are explosive enough to burst through a window but don't actually "cut" anything, nor do they rely on the existence of the as yet unproven, or if you prefer, incompletely explained "nano-thermite" theory, or at the most basic levels, do they even need to rely on a grandiose, extremely complicated, improbable, super-secret-squirrel conspiracy at all to produce the same results seen in the video.

All they need to rely on is the fact that impact forces can and will travel along connected columns, that said impact forces can deform or buckle a column that has been weakened by heating or structural damage, that over 400,000 ft3 of air can be compressed in a fraction of a second by falling floors and then escape through broken floors, stairwells and even elevator shafts to find weak points in the building's facade (i.e. weak or damaged windows) to explosively escape through, even if those weak points are several floors above or below the point of collapse.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

That is what the Arab terrorist wanted by slamming aircraft into buildings during the 911 attacks, not our government

Have you read the Rebuilding America’s Defenses document, skyeagle?

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor”

~PNAC, 2000

In 2001 a significant number of PNAC signatories were appointed key positions within the Bush administration. This included Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

There was far more incentive for the above to enact a transforming event than Arabs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

There is all the evidence that should be expected of a demolition.

The full body of evidence is suggestive of a false flag attack.

Evidence of a damage/fire initiated collapse is conspicuous by its absence.

A simple terrorist attack relies on selective use of the full evidence.

From where I'm sitting you appear to have this completely backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

From where I'm sitting you appear to have this completely backwards.

With respect, judging by our past discussions, you do not appear particularly well informed of the full body of evidence.

I can’t be too concerned about an opinion from such a position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Have you read the Rebuilding America's Defenses document, skyeagle?

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

~PNAC, 2000

In 2001 a significant number of PNAC signatories were appointed key positions within the Bush administration. This included Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

There was far more incentive for the above to enact a transforming event than Arabs.

I fail to see how the 911 attacks were in our best interest wihen it cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars in insurance payments and trillions more that has affected our economy and the American way of life that continues to this very day and to add to that, American service personnel continue to die in a 10-year war in Afghanistan.

We were doing much better before the 911 attacks, and now, we have memorials for thousands of victims and thousands more lives have been affected by the 911 attacks. Check this out.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday recommended a broad range of budgetary cuts to high-tech weapons programs, including production of the F-22 fighter jet.

In a move that won mixed reviews from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, Gates said his $534 billion budget proposal represents a "fundamental overhaul" in defense acquisition and reflects a shift in priorities from fighting conventional wars to the newer threats U.S. forces face from insurgents in places such as Afghanistan.

He called for production of the F-22 jet to stop at 187 jets. The U.S. military has 183 jets in service now, so just four more would be funded as part of the fiscal 2009 supplemental budget if President Obama approves the recommendations. The planes cost $140 million each.

Lockheed Martin has already warned that ending this production would result in the loss of more than 90,000 jobs.

Plans to build a new helicopter for the president and a helicopter to rescue downed pilots would also be canceled. A new communications satellite would be scrapped and the program for a new Air Force transport plane would be ended.

Some of the Pentagon's most expensive programs would also be scaled back. The Army's $160 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program would lose its armored vehicles. Plans to build a shield to defend against missile attacks by rogue states would also be scaled back.

To fight new threats from insurgents, Gates is proposing more funding for special forces and other tools.

Morrell, the Pentagon spokesman, said Congress already cut the military’s budget request in a $787 billion economic recovery package from $10 billion to $7.4 billion. Gates met Friday with his top military commanders from around the world to discuss the 2010 budget.

My link

That is not what I would call an incentive for our best interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

With respect, judging by our past discussions, you do not appear particularly well informed of the full body of evidence.

I can’t be too concerned about an opinion from such a position.

What portion of this full body of evidence do you assume that I'm uninformed about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

Because what you are saying is happening is not shown in the video you are saying is evidence.

maybe you didn't understand what I was saying.
- Your so-called "flash" happens far enough away from the corner columns as to, if nothing else, make one wonder why the "cutter charges" would be expelling their smoke through a window or other opening in the side of the building several feet away from where you are saying the "cutter charges" are allegedly "cutting";
so you are saying there is evidence of an explosive event near the corner rather than exactly on the corner. ok I'll go with that.
- The corner columns that you say are being "cut" by the "cutter charges" are clearly shown in the video to be apparently un-cut;
I never used the word "cut", I used the word "damage" and "break". you are inventing a strawman argument. the steel did not need to be cut in order to indicate evidence of an explosive event, so what you say here does not rule out evidence of an explosive event.
- There are explanations for the "flash" and the "knuckle" that do not rely on the existence of covert "cutter charges" that apparently work from across the room, or actually, don't work at all, but make enough smoke or at the very least are explosive enough to burst through a window but don't actually "cut" anything, nor do they rely on the existence of the as yet unproven, or if you prefer, incompletely explained "nano-thermite" theory, or at the most basic levels, do they even need to rely on a grandiose, extremely complicated, improbable, super-secret-squirrel conspiracy at all to produce the same results seen in the video. All they need to rely on is the fact that impact forces can and will travel along connected columns, that said impact forces can deform or buckle a column that has been weakened by heating or structural damage, that over 400,000 ft3 of air can be compressed in a fraction of a second by falling floors and then escape through broken floors, stairwells and even elevator shafts to find weak points in the building's facade (i.e. weak or damaged windows) to explosively escape through, even if those weak points are several floors above or below the point of collapse.
Other speculations are irrelevent, you seem to be confusing evidence with proof. I never said it proved there was an explosion, I said it was evidence of an explosion.

here's a challenge for you:

1. show evidence that 1+1=2

2. show proof that 1+1=2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101
maybe you didn't understand what I was saying.

I admit that is a possibility.

so you are saying there is evidence of an explosive event near the corner rather than exactly on the corner. ok I'll go with that.

Are you willing to go with the possibility that it might be compressed air bursting through a window? I'm not asking if you agree that IS what it is, just that it is another possible explanation.

I never used the word "cut", I used the word "damage" and "break". you are inventing a strawman argument. the steel did not need to be cut in order to indicate evidence of an explosive event, so what you say here does not rule out evidence of an explosive event.

Ok... so when you said this:

if there was thermal cutter charge 18 floors above the impact zone on the corner columns,

What exactly did you mean then? If a "cutter charge" is not supposed to "cut", then what exactly is it supposed to do...?

And how can it be a strawman when I am using the term you yourself used and am referencing its accepted definition?

Other speculations are irrelevent, you seem to be confusing evidence with proof. I never said it proved there was an explosion, I said it was evidence of an explosion.

And I have never said it proved that my ideas were right, either, just that they were more probable.

You have been arguing for it to be evidence of some kind of explosive or "cutter charge" used to, I guess, help initiate collapse.

I have been showing you how the very same evidence that you are providing can be interpreted to support an alternate theory.

I'm sorry if you don't like having your ideas / theories countered but your dislike of an alternate explanation for your evidence does not make it irrelevant.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

There is all the evidence that should be expected of a demolition.

There is no evidence of a controlled demolition process. There is no evidence anywhere in the videos of a chemical explosion.

The full body of evidence is suggestive of a false flag attack.

There is no evidence of a false flag attack. Government intelligence services dropped the ball, which is nothing new.

Evidence of a damage/fire initiated collapse is conspicuous by its absence.

On the contrary, you can expect heat from the fires to weaken damaged support structures to failure if left unchecked, and that is exactly what happened to both buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

I admit that is a possibility.

Are you willing to go with the possibility that it might be compressed air bursting through a window? I'm not asking if you agree that IS what it is, just that it is another possible explanation.

Ok... so when you said this:

What exactly did you mean then? If a "cutter charge" is not supposed to "cut", then what exactly is it supposed to do...?

And how can it be a strawman when I am using the term you yourself used and am referencing its accepted definition?

And I have never said it proved that my ideas were right, either, just that they were more probable.

You have been arguing for it to be evidence of some kind of explosive or "cutter charge" used to, I guess, help initiate collapse.

I have been showing you how the very same evidence that you are providing can be interpreted to support an alternate theory.

I'm sorry if you don't like having your ideas / theories countered but your dislike of an alternate explanation for your evidence does not make it irrelevant.

I have shown you that the statement "there is no evidence of chemical explosions" is false.

your attempt at splitting hairs over unintended and imagined detail is not relevent to proving the above statement false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

Little Fish, this "flash" that you suggest is evidence of chemical explosion is not unique. You can see hundreds of such "flashes" in the following compilation video. Many of these "flashes" are quite obviously just reflective material of some kind glinting in the sun as they tumble and spin through the air.

So my question to you is, how is the "flash" that you've focused on differentiated from the rest of these "flashes?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.