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

skyeagle409

Here we go again...

"..the buildings collapsed due to structural failure of the support beams when the beams lost half of their supporting potential due to heat. The support beams were also damaged during the impacts, which further eroded the ability of the beams to support the upper floors.."

WTC 1 had seven floors (93 to 99) damaged and/or exposed to fire, while WTC 2 had nine floors (77 to 85) They were structurally intact above and below those floors.

The towers were demolished, and you claim no explosives were used whatsoever.

That is exactly right, no explosives were used nor any evidence recovered that explosives were used.

Then you say...

"..it would have taken months to properly plan, prepare, and place explosives in order to bring down the buildings.."

Why would they go to all that trouble? You just told me that a few floors of random damage and fires will suffice!! :rolleyes:

It was all very simple. The heat from the fires weakened the support stuctures and the floors pancaked upon themselves. Another way to look at this is that WTC 1 was struck first, but the last to fall. Why?! Because the weakened support structures had more weight to support overhead than WTC 1 and that is why WTC 2 fell first. The United 175 struck WTC 2 at a lower point than WTC 1. The heat did not need to be high enough to melt steel, but just high enough to weaken the already damaged support structures to a point of failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

I think that that's the essence of skyeagle's reasoning, yeah. Start with the conclusion (it wasn't an inside job), then work your way backwards from that.

Pretty good video, though I think would have been better without the last comment from the woman; I know intelligent people who believe in the official story; I think the main reason they believe this is that, like skyeagle, they worked on the problem in reverse; starting with the conclusion and working backwards instead of starting with observations and seeing where they lead.

Nano-thermite does not mean that explosives were used. There were no blasting caps nor hundreds of feet of detonation cables recovered from the wreckages. That is hint #1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

To show how 9/11 conspiracist have made a mockery of themselves over American 77.

Now, take a look at an investigative video on the Pentagon attack. You will be able to see a slight outline of American 77 just before it struck the Pentagon, and yet, 9/11 conspiracist claimed that the object that struck the Pentagon was a missile fired from a C-130, which was actually on a routine mission.

I have identified individual aircraft components in the photos at the Pentagon as those from a B-757 and the markings are those of American Airlines. It shows that the 9/11 conspiracist are not up to par with the facts, which is why they are 9/11 conspiracist.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101
you are letting your belief drive your thinking, rather than your thinking drive your belief.

I think that that's the essence of skyeagle's reasoning, yeah. Start with the conclusion (it wasn't an inside job), then work your way backwards from that.

Well, he's hardly alone in that mindset.

Many proponents of the various conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 (and many other events, as well) start from their belief in a conspiracy (that it had to have been an inside job) or in their distrust of the government (i.e. "the government can be shown to have lied before so they must be lying about this, too") and then work at fitting the available evidence to their theories.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

you said it doesn't matter that engineered unreacted nanothermite was found at the wtc. the reason you gave for asserting that it doesn't matter that engineered unreacted nanothermite was discovered in the dust was that there were no reports of secondary explosions, a non-sequitur in of itself, but you have now been shown a whole list of reports of secondary explosions, so your reason for ignoring the evidence of engineered unreacted nanothermite has now been shown to be misplaced. unreacted explosive material was found, explosions were heard and reported. "people don't understand, this ain't over, anyone of these buildings could blow up". you are letting your belief drive your thinking, rather than your thinking drive your belief.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=8n-nT-luFIw

Once again, there were no secondary explosions. I have seen many explosions and saw no secondaries in any of the videos. What people saw was the explosives expulsions of air as the floors pancaked upon one another and the noise they heard was not explosions at all, but the sound effects as the buildings collapsed which only soulded like explosions.

Check out this video and pay special attention at timeline 7:30.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

I think that that's the essence of skyeagle's reasoning, yeah. Start with the conclusion (it wasn't an inside job), then work your way backwards from that.

Pretty good video, though I think would have been better without the last comment from the woman; I know intelligent people who believe in the official story; I think the main reason they believe this is that, like skyeagle, they worked on the problem in reverse; starting with the conclusion and working backwards instead of starting with observations and seeing where they lead.

I have provided facts that have yet to be refuted. Here's another video.

WTC 7

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

More misconceptions from 9/11 conspiracist.

United 93

Pay special attention at timeline 6:00

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

I think that that's the essence of skyeagle's reasoning, yeah. Start with the conclusion (it wasn't an inside job), then work your way backwards from that.

That would be giving skyeagle too much credit. It's more: start with the conclusion (it wasn't an inside job), then… repeat incessantly. There is very little actual reasoning or thought contained in his posts, thus the impossibility to engage him in coherent discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

you said it doesn't matter that engineered unreacted nanothermite was found at the wtc.

That's right! It doesn't matter, and here is another reason why. Read what it takes to prepare a building for demolition.

building-implosion-19.jpg

building-implosion-20.jpg

My link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

That would be giving skyeagle too much credit. It's more: start with the conclusion (it wasn't an inside job), then… repeat incessantly. There is very little actual reasoning or thought contained in his posts, thus the impossibility to engage him in coherent discussion.

I posted those videos to make a point that 9/11 conspiracies are loose with the facts. Even "Loose Change" has backed away from some of its claims after reviewing the same evidence presented in the videos which I have provided.

What it is, the facts and evidence never supported the 9/11 conspiracies and the skeptics have continued to ignore those facts and evidence related to the 9/11 attacks. They have claimed:

* Explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings.

FACT: No evidence of explosives were ever found in the wreckages of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, as noted by experts and investigators.

* There was no way to use cell phones on airliners.

FACT: Cell phone calls and calls from more than 30 air phones were recorded

* The airliners were drones

FACT: The four aircraft that were destroyed during the 9/11 attack were not drones. That can be ascertained by the fact that registration numbers for United 175, American 11, American 77, and United 93, have been retired. A check of FAA records and those of American and United airlines could have determined that those aircraft are no longer in service because they were destroyed on 9/11/2001, but I guess the 9/11 conspircist didn't know that.

* A missile struck the Pentagon.

FACT: Hundreds of witnesses saw American 77 strike the Pentagon and the B-757 is shown in a video just before it struck the building. In addition, debris has been identified as those from an American Airlines, B-757. The black box for American 77 has been recovered as well.

800px-Flight_77_wreckage_at_Pentagon.jpg

800px-P911_fuselage.jpg

658px-Flight_77_CVR.jpg

800px-Pentagon_Debris_4.jpg

B-757, APU Door at the Pentagon

The list goes on and on and yet, the 9/11 conspiracist have yet to produce a shred of evidence to backup their claims, whereas, their claims have been successfully debunked and the icing on the cake lies in the fact that after more than 10 years, no evidence has surfaced that support their claims.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

I think the main reason they believe this is that, like skyeagle, they worked on the problem in reverse; starting with the conclusion and working backwards instead of starting with observations and seeing where they lead.

Ever wondered why some 9/11 comspiracist have now backed off their claim that explosives were planted in WTC 1 and WTC 2 buildings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stundie

That's right! It doesn't matter, and here is another reason why. Read what it takes to prepare a building for demolition.

building-implosion-19.jpg

building-implosion-20.jpg

My link

I know I said I wouldn't post but I really can't help myself when this argument is presented. No doubt this post will be seen as trolling or something, but this really makes me laugh so much, that I can't believe that those who support the official story have the gall to present this as a valid argument. Oh well, that's debunking logic for ya!! :w00t:

So according to skyeagle, it takes all this work to prepare a building for demolition, yet in the same breath, he and many others like him, believe that in the case of WTC 7, all you need is a few fires, or should I say an imaginary inferno, give it seven hours or so and bobs your uncle, the building will come down just like it's been demolished.

Makes you wonder why all these demo companies don't just use a box of matches and hire a wrecking ball to bring down buildings, instead of doing all this time consuming work, employing many men with lots of explosives!

They wouldn't even need to clear out the buildings entirely, they could leave any materials they didn't want to aid the fire too. What a cheeky bonus that would be hey?? No need to take out any non load bearing walls either! They'd save a shed load of money, infact they could probably do it with a single match, so that one match box could potentially take down a number of buildings. Better still, just a piece of flint would do it and some kindling.

I would love to see a debunker start up a demolition company using fires and maybe a wrecking ball, they should be able to undercut any demolition company. Maybe they could bring the demolition business kicking and screaming into the 21st century instead of using those old fashioned explosives, which as we all know, are not as good at demolishing buildings as fires. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stundie

Well, he's hardly alone in that mindset.

Many proponents of the various conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 (and many other events, as well) start from their belief in a conspiracy (that it had to have been an inside job) or in their distrust of the government (i.e. "the government can be shown to have lied before so they must be lying about this, too") and then work at fitting the available evidence to their theories.

Cz

Although I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I am often labelled as one, I can safely say that is not the case with me or all of the people I know who doubt the official story.

I believed the official story for about 4 years before I started questioning it. So I didn't have any belief in a conspiracy, but actually a belief in the official story and the people I know who question the official story, also believed the official story for a few years too as well.

I don't know a single person who started with a belief in a conspiracy, they all started to believe in it when they realised things about the official story didn't add up or sit right.

I'm sure there are some conspiracy theorists who started with a belief in a conspiracy or had a distrust of government, but all the ones I've communicated with believed the official story long before they believed in a conspiracy.

Cheers

Stundie :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

9/11 conspiracist do not look at the real facts before commenting.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

I know I said I wouldn't post but I really can't help myself when this argument is presented. No doubt this post will be seen as trolling or something, but this really makes me laugh so much, that I can't believe that those who support the official story have the gall to present this as a valid argument. Oh well, that's debunking logic for ya!! :w00t:

It is all very simple. The 9/11 conspiracist claim that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings, and I said, "no way." They have no idea what it takes to prepare and plant explosives, which is why they stuck to their claim. Now, one group has now decided to backed off of their claim that explosives were used in the WTC 1 and WTC 2 buildings after further evidence was presented to them, so once again, there was no way to prepare and plant explosives in the WTC buildings in the time frame suggested and not be detected, and investigators and experts have concurred as well.

It is clearly evident that 9/11 conspiracist do not deal in facts and evidence.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

ISo according to skyeagle, it takes all this work to prepare a building for demolition, yet in the same breath, he and many others like him, believe that in the case of WTC 7,...

Review the video I posted on WTC 7

all you need is a few fires, or should I say an imaginary inferno, give it seven hours or so and bobs your uncle, the building will come down just like it's been demolished.

Yepper, and the fires did not need to be hot enough to melt steel. After all, at a little over 1100 degrees, steel loses half of its strength and you must take into consideration that some of the supports were damaged when the aircraft impacted the buildings so the heat needed to commence the collapse would just be high enough to weaken steel even further. Once again, a good example is where WTC 2 collapsed before WTC 1, which was struck first yet the last to collapse because it had less overhead weight to support than WTC 2.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

I would love to see a debunker start up a demolition company using fires and maybe a wrecking ball, they should be able to undercut any demolition company. Maybe they could bring the demolition business kicking and screaming into the 21st century instead of using those old fashioned explosives, which as we all know, are not as good at demolishing buildings as fires. :blink:

It is just a matter of breaking half of the supports that support several thousand tons and then, heat the remaining supports to 1500 degrees for 30-45 minutes and then, watch the action..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wandering

I'm off to start up my own highrise demolition company then! I can't wait to start getting every contract when the clients start seeing how quickly and silently I can bring down their towers with just my fire!

* Explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings.

FACT: No evidence of explosives were ever found in the wreckages of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, as noted by experts and investigators.

FACT: No investigations were performed into the possibility of explosives being used. This, in Skyeagles mind = no explosives.

* The airliners were drones

FACT: The four aircraft that were destroyed during the 9/11 attack were not drones. That can be ascertained by the fact that registration numbers for United 175, American 11, American 77, and United 93, have been retired. A check of FAA records and those of American and United airlines could have determined that those aircraft are no longer in service because they were destroyed on 9/11/2001, but I guess the 9/11 conspircist didn't know that.

FACT: Skyeagle believes for some strange reason that if this was a conspiracy, the registration numbers would not be retired. The public think that 175, 11, 77 and 93 have been destroyed, yet they would supposedly not retire the registration numbers because.... ????(inb4 Skyeagle avoids the answer to this question in favour of repeating that the numbers have been retired). This, in Skyeagles mind = evidence.

* A missile struck the Pentagon.

FACT: Hundreds of witnesses saw American 77 strike the Pentagon and the B-757 is shown in a video just before it struck the building. In addition, debris has been identified as those from an American Airlines, B-757. The black box for American 77 has been recovered as well.

No one serious here has mentioned the possibility of a missile striking the Pentagon. Feel free to ignore asked questions and answer unasked ones though!!

It is just a matter of breaking half of the supports that support several thousand tons and then, heat the remaining supports to 1500 degrees for 30-45 minutes and then, watch the action..

& How many of the 4 Major columns were destroyed at impact? Lucky all the weight was still centralised so it collapsed into It's own footprint, not onto a building next to it aye? :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Only

Makes you wonder why all these demo companies don't just use a box of matches and hire a wrecking ball to bring down buildings, instead of doing all this time consuming work, employing many men with lots of explosives!

That's not green!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

It is just a matter of breaking half of the supports that support several thousand tons and then, heat the remaining supports to 1500 degrees for 30-45 minutes and then, watch the action..

First of all, half of what supports? Even the official story states that the planes only damaged a few floors. What of the rest of the building, that was perfectly intact, untouched by both plane and fire? Stundie really does have the gist of it; if it were so easy to bring down steel framed buildings, there would be no need to set up explosives throughout a building; take out a floor or 2 and presto, the building would pancake itself to oblivion, vanishing into its own footprint.There's a very good reason that NIST cops out of actually demonstrating how fires could have "initiated collapse", instead just saying that that's what happened. If you take a look at their model of WTC 7 (which didn't even have the help of a plane to bring it down), you can see that the computer model doesn't even look like what actually happened. And again, they cop out of actually showing how the building could have collapsed. The reason is rather simple; fires don't collapse buildings into their own footprint. The best example of what a -fire- would do (and I'm actually wondering if an accelerant was used) can be seen in the fire of the Windsor Tower; 9/11 Research explains the difference between the partial collapse of the Windsor Tower, which was -not- as strong as a steel framed building, and the total collapse of the WTC buildings, which were:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

First of all, half of what supports? Even the official story states that the planes only damaged a few floors.

We know that skyeagle is talking from a misinformed position - I doubt he has even read any study on the collapses. Even in the direct impact region the worst case NIST could reasonably envision did not damage half of the core columns, let alone perimeter columns that carried a large percentage of the building load. Immediately after impact the towers were both stable, as the designers had intended.

It does not appear the impact damage was a determining factor. I mean, look at WTC1 - it tilted away from the impact damage side. This means the fire or… something… opposite to the impact side caused greater damage than the impact itself.

Interesting the main elevator banks were on that side of the tower, and this where it is suggested provided best access to the core columns… for instance, if anyone wanted to demolish the building.

There's a very good reason that NIST cops out of actually demonstrating how fires could have "initiated collapse", instead just saying that that's what happened.

The NIST damage and fire theory for the towers does reach the point of “collapse initiation” where the upper structure started moving down (albeit using visibly non-real world assumptions to get there). It is in explaining the “global collapse”, how the downward movement continued, that NIST cop-out and refer to Bazant’s paper (equally non-real world).

If you take a look at their model of WTC 7 (which didn't even have the help of a plane to bring it down), you can see that the computer model doesn't even look like what actually happened.

That is very true. The NIST model of WTC7 warped and twisted as it fell. The real life collapse is observed to be more symmetrical and rigid, suggesting a uniform event occurred across main support columns of the structure.

The best example of what a -fire- would do (and I'm actually wondering if an accelerant was used) can be seen in the fire of the Windsor Tower; 9/11 Research explains the difference between the partial collapse of the Windsor Tower, which was -not- as strong as a steel framed building, and the total collapse of the WTC buildings, which were:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

I’m not convinced by the argument that a steel frame is more resistant to fire than a concrete structure. I could see sections of concrete cracking, though never weakening and buckling in the way steel can, i.e. concrete is never going to fall ‘through’ itself.

The failure of external steelwork in the Madrid building is equally meaningless as collapse reports have stated those columns were, shall we say flimsy, and non-fireproofed.

Perhaps the most notable observation from the Madrid building is that there was huge distortion of the steelwork prior to failure and collapse of the upper floors did not ‘crush’ the rest of the floors below - both points unlike the WTC collapses.

Taking all into account, it is beyond obvious that the WTC structures were demolished - nothing about a ‘natural’ collapse fits, it is a square peg in a round hole, and yet everything about demolition explains the observations A-Z.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Although I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I am often labelled as one, I can safely say that is not the case with me or all of the people I know who doubt the official story.

I believed the official story for about 4 years before I started questioning it. So I didn't have any belief in a conspiracy, but actually a belief in the official story and the people I know who question the official story, also believed the official story for a few years too as well.

I don't know a single person who started with a belief in a conspiracy, they all started to believe in it when they realised things about the official story didn't add up or sit right.

I'm sure there are some conspiracy theorists who started with a belief in a conspiracy or had a distrust of government, but all the ones I've communicated with believed the official story long before they believed in a conspiracy.

Cheers

Stundie :)

I will second all that from my own experience.

I did not question the official story whatsoever for around two years - I was actually looking-up the reason we were in Iraq and stumbled over some 9/11 information. I hardly blinked; I wrote it off as an oddity. It was only after a further two years research and watching events unfold that I accepted the evidence supported a false flag. And I still wouldn’t have it! There was a mental block that, “they just wouldn’t”. I went on forums and asked questions that I now see were completely naive. The straw that broke the camel’s back is in my avatar and sig - it was the first piece of evidence that led me to realise, “oh, perhaps they would”. I have researched a huge volume of additional evidence and moved on a lot since then, now accepting the nature of 9/11 as self-evident.

The above is a story common to most who accept a false flag - I’ve read it many times. In eight years I have only heard perhaps two or three who claim to have gone through that process in reverse (and to be honest I wonder if that claim is only for effect; a fib in attempt to counter the type of story above).

There will be those who made accusations of a false flag from day one, though that is apparently a fringe of those who now comprise the truth movement. I would suggest it also includes those who were more farsighted and already had information which led them to question certain intentions, rightly so. I know that whenever any major event happens I will never auto-accept the official story again.

In contrast, practically (if not literally) every person who now accepts the official story will have done so from day one. I’m not sure it’s a good idea for the official story to raise the subject of exactly who is starting and primarily working from a belief rather than evidence base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

what started my questioning was the impossibility of the passport, and then the anthrax attacks targetting reporters and the media. the realisation through discussion with qualified friends that anthrax was not a general biological disease but an assassin's weapon. then the non appearance of the blair/powell "proof" that that was promised, then scott ritter's reports that iraq could not have had wmd, then the PNAC document Rebuilding America's Defences, then a whole lot of reading books and research, so a gradual process.

if I recall correctly it was mainly the anthrax attacks and the PNAC document.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bubs49

9/11 conspiracist do not look at the real facts before commenting.

Funny. That's exactly what happened with you in the Pentagon thread.

1. You ignored BTS database data proving the duplication

2. You ignored 84 RADES radar data proving odd overlappings, mergings and splittings

3. You ignored ACARS data proving United 175 and United 93 were still airborne after their alleged crash.

If conspiracists do not look at the real facts before commenting, then you're definitely a conspiracist.

Edited by bubs49

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.