If the 9/11 Conspiracy theories are ever proven?

onelongsong

spiral out wrote:

What are you talking about?

you claim the experts are wrong so i assume you have evidence to back it. if not; why do you feel you have the answers?

spiral out

onelongsong wrote:

that's a great point mookie. what would it take for that many people to jump to their deaths?
it's been 6 years and nobody has shown any new evidence that hasn't been altered. if any credible evidence had been discovered; it would be reported by every media all over the world. i'll stick with the psycologists that say theorists suffer from PTSD and will never believe any explaination.

Lol reported by the media you think they don't ignore certain subjects or infact are told they are not allowed to report it, have you maybe heard of d-notices. Wow you really are disillusioned, maybe you better join those conspiricy theorists with PSTD in the mental hospital.

spiral out

onelongsong wrote:

you claim the experts are wrong so i assume you have evidence to back it. if not; why do you feel you have the answers?

Yes popular mechnics have been debunked in some of the rubbish they wrote, google is your friend.

hodge

onelongsong wrote:

when he has some credible evidence it'll be all over the news. until then he's just another nutter spouting off.

so you didn't take the time to read the article i'm assuming?

hodge

ps:

One of the editors (Prof. Griffin) has explained that there were four reviewers for my paper, all Ph.D’s, two were physicists.

all the references used in the article are on page 46 if you are interested in checking them out further to determine the article's "credibility"

hodge

The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition for the destruction of the Twin Towers
Tony Szamboti
Mechanical Engineer

My intent here is to show that any honest and objective look at all of the theories, for the destruction of the twin towers, including the present government explanation, will cause one to realize that only the controlled
demolition hypothesis is sustainable. I believe an honest look at the evidence will convince anyone that the controlled demolition hypothesis provides the best explanation for the complete collapses of the towers, as well as the damage to the buildings and objects surrounding them

endnotes and references begin on page 6
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/SzambotiSustainabilityofControlledDemolitionHypothesisForDestructionofTwinTowers.pdf

i also want to mention if you have anything to bring to the table, i would gladly read it

g under p

onelongsong wrote:

when he has some credible evidence it'll be all over the news. until then he's just another nutter spouting off.

You must be living in a chicken coop, i don't believe this person will take to read anything that may cause doubt but let it be blasted over our media and he'll quickly believe it.

This is the same person who talked about me attracting attention to myself because I have stickers on the back of my truck. After I told him/her what was actually OLS quietly ran away. Do you remember? Do some reading.


Peace

jamtemplechains

spiral out wrote:

jamtemplechains wrote:

Ok then so you think the goverment was complicit in it, so do i. But why hasn't anyone come forward to admit that.

Why would it take thousands of people to be involved to pull this one off?

What about if the CIA funded the cave people who allegedly masterminded the whole thing. That could well have happened.

After all it's what the CIA are known for.

The think that makes me laugh about people on these boards and i'm not saying you specifically is that they can believe that people from a cave can pull this off, but that there own goverment is to stupid to pull it off. Can no one see the stupidity in that thought.

a bunch of "people in a cave" as you call them have no liability or consequence for masterminding an attack. they're already insurgents in their own nation who aren't going to be getting investigated or punished for what they do, and who gladly accept responsiblity and take pride in such attacks. investigation agencies and a small group of political figures in the u.s government would never do something that would contain such traceable involvement with today's technology and easy access of information. they know they'd be fucked and would burn for it.

g under p

spiral out wrote:

jamtemplechains wrote:

Ok then so you think the goverment was complicit in it, so do i. But why hasn't anyone come forward to admit that.

Why would it take thousands of people to be involved to pull this one off?

What about if the CIA funded the cave people who allegedly masterminded the whole thing. That could well have happened.

After all it's what the CIA are known for.

The think that makes me laugh about people on these boards and i'm not saying you specifically is that they can believe that people from a cave can pull this off, but that there own goverment is to stupid to pull it off. Can no one see the stupidity in that thought.

Here are Noam Chomsky's thoughts on the topic.

Part 1
Part 2

Peace

spiral out

g under p wrote:

Here are Noam Chomsky's thoughts on the topic.

Part 1
Part 2

Peace

I am curently reading my way through Noams books. He's a great source of information.

I respect his opinion, but do you not think that it is in his best interest to say what he said about it. What would happen if the guy said anything other than what he said?

He would lose any respect people had for him as a writer and would be considered a nut job till the day he died.

But thats not to say that i disagree with what he said. I was mearly putting other ideas out there.

9/11 to me was their "pearl harbour" it was allowed to happen. And i think that thats as much as anyone can really say on the subject without speculating.

jamtemplechains

spiral out wrote:

Ok then so you think the goverment was complicit in it, so do i. But why hasn't anyone come forward to admit that.

Why would it take thousands of people to be involved to pull this one off?

What about if the CIA funded the cave people who allegedly masterminded the whole thing. That could well have happened.

After all it's what the CIA are known for.

The think that makes me laugh about people on these boards and i'm not saying you specifically is that they can believe that people from a cave can pull this off, but that there own goverment is to stupid to pull it off. Can no one see the stupidity in that thought.

had to repost this because for some reason it had somehow switched and said it was a post by me; this was originally posted by spiralout. i noticed when g under p quoted it and sent the chomsky material. just wanted to clear that up, because obviously it would have been pretty odd if i'd posted this, considering everything i've been saying thus far, lol.

jamtemplechains

spiral out wrote:

Yes popular mechnics have been debunked in some of the rubbish they wrote, google is your friend.

even if popular mechanics had flaws that were discovered, tell me what credible rebuttal was ever raised to the national institue of standards and technology's findings found here: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Question presented on site: "Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST's response: NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."
that's just a little taste for you.

hodge

9/11 – Acceleration Study Proves Explosive Demolition
Frank Legge (Ph D)
Logical Systems Consulting

Abstract
The topic of the downward acceleration of the buildings at the World Trade Centre has been frequently discussed. The discussion is usually brief and combined with other lines of evidence for explosive demolition and its significance is thereby obscured. Acceleration is an important topic because it is based on evidence readily available to all, namely videos, and also because the calculations involved are not complex and can easily be verified by the reader. The conclusion reached that explosives were used in the demolition of these buildings is therefore not only compelling but readily accessible.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200611/911-Acceleration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf


PROOF THAT THE THERMAL AND GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY AVAILABLE WERE INSUFFICIENT TO MELT STEEL IN THE TWIN TOWERS AND 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9/11/01
Terry Morrone.
Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University

Conclusions
Since there was molten steel in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, and since the temperatures of the fires were insufficient to melt steel, and since the gravitational energy was shown to be very much smaller than the energy needed to melt steel, the Twin Towers and 7 WTC could only have been brought down by explosives or cutter charges.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

does anyone, particularly onelovesong, or anyone else have any articles they could share that counter the few articles i've posted on the past 3 pages? i'm interested in reading those

jamtemplechains

hodge wrote:

9/11 – Acceleration Study Proves Explosive Demolition
Frank Legge (Ph D)
Logical Systems Consulting


http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200611/911-Acceleration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf


PROOF THAT THE THERMAL AND GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY AVAILABLE WERE INSUFFICIENT TO MELT STEEL IN THE TWIN TOWERS AND 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9/11/01
Terry Morrone.
Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University


http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

does anyone, particularly onelovesong, or anyone else have any articles they could share that counter the few articles i've posted on the past 3 pages? i'm interested in reading those

what exactly is wrong with NIST's studies, investigations, and findings? also, steel wouldn't have to melt for the buildings to fall. steel may not melt at the temperature at which the fires were burning, but it would have lost half of its strengh, which--with floors of skyscraper bearing down--would be more than enough to cause the tumble.

jamtemplechains

besides, there are plenty of credible organizations, web sites, and articles that support the conventional explaination of what happened...do you have anything available to reference besides that same CT-obsessed 911journal site?

spiral out

jamtemplechains wrote:

even if popular mechanics had flaws that were discovered, tell me what credible rebuttal was ever raised to the national institue of standards and technology's findings found here: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Question presented on site: "Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST's response: NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."
that's just a little taste for you.

Yes i see what you are saying but generally when you investigate something you often study the cause that looks most likely to have happened. Now in the case of the twin towers, controlled demoltion has not even been given any thought by the goverment payed people as it is a big taboo. So they have gone out of there way to explore every other avenue other than the one that seemed most likely.

And really how can i trust NIST anymore than anyone else when the building remains were never studied as they were shiped out of the country before anyone got the chance to look at them.

You are only going to get people not approved of by the goverment exploring those theorys, who if they do not agree with the offical story can be passed of as nutters.

hodge

jamtemplechains wrote:

besides, there are plenty of credible organizations, web sites, and articles that support the conventional explaination of what happened...do you have anything available to reference besides that same CT-obsessed 911journal site?

can you share some with me? i like to read both sides

69charger

spiral out wrote:

So they have gone out of there way to explore every other avenue other than the one that seemed most likely.

Most likely?!?! Why do you say that? Do you have any idea what it takes to demolish a building using explosives? If you did you would not think the explosives "theory" likely at all.

hodge

69charger wrote:

Most likely?!?! Why do you say that? Do you have any idea what it takes to demolish a building using explosives? If you did you would not think the explosives "theory" likely at all.

Conversely it may not have been too complex to have explosives inserted in the buildings as Marvin Bush, brother of George W Bush, had been on the board of directors during 2000, of the company that was providing security, and his cousin Wirt Walker III was CEO on 11th Sept. This company, Securacom, also provided security at Dulles International Airport from which American Airlines Flight 77 departed.

any of that sound fishy to anyone with an objective and open-mind?

and wait, haven't some of the reported hijackers been found alive? and wait, weren't some of the hijackers not even on the flight manifest? yet they got on board?

g under p

spiral out wrote:

I am curently reading my way through Noams books. He's a great source of information.

I respect his opinion, but do you not think that it is in his best interest to say what he said about it. What would happen if the guy said anything other than what he said?

He would lose any respect people had for him as a writer and would be considered a nut job till the day he died.

But thats not to say that i disagree with what he said. I was mearly putting other ideas out there.

9/11 to me was their "pearl harbour" it was allowed to happen. And i think that thats as much as anyone can really say on the subject without speculating.

Whether it was in his best interest or not matters noe to me. I respect NC and I like him it's just I want to post something that others here might be interested in what he had to say.

As for me since day one when this event occured I said I cannot believe this nation, I mean thyis government had NO IDEA, NO CLUE this event was about to happen. They have been spying on Americans since before 9/II and we knew NOTHING, I dont think so.

Peace