It's not a conspiracy

[Nihilus]

The site you linked to wasn't peer reviewed either. You want peer reviewed? Here.

Tons of people have been running tests, just don't expect the msm to tell you about it.

Wth? That thing is written by the SAME people, using their findings from the other paper as a basis. Sorry, but who the hell can verify they ever even ran any tests on the dust found after the buildings collapsed?

[Solid Knight]

Then the building shouldn't have fallen at free fall speed, but they did. At the very least you have to admit there is something funny with building 7. It has been proven to have fallen at free fall speed and it wasn't even hit by a plane!

I was talking about the free fall collapse. The fail is on you.

Because you were there measuring it as it was falling and determined that it was at 9.8m/s. Oddly enough the building is dropping at a lesser speed in all the videos. What gives? Do you think the government used CGI and tricked everyone with a camera?

[mudslag]

Then the building shouldn't have fallen at free fall speed, but they did. At the very least you have to admit there is something funny with building 7. It has been proven to have fallen at free fall speed and it wasn't even hit by a plane!

Just like you argue for one view, others argue for the other side, of no "free fall"... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=335_1193103122

[Stetson]

You can see pretty clearly in some of the shots here:

The top part of the building folded down onto the corner that was most severely damaged. The top part of the building was actually at a pretty significant angle as it fell, and it looks like a pretty messy collapse. At one point you can see a small spire of the building still sticking up above the dust cloud.

It does not look like a controlled vertical implosion to me.

Edit: Here's a frame from a video of the north tower:

[Solid Knight]

Not to mention that it is impossible for people to not notice all these explosives and det-cord being strung all around the building in order to do a controlled demolition. Further, nobody had ever done a demolition starting in the middle of a building on a structure this size. It'd be too highly experimental to pull off twice.

[mudslag]

Not to mention that it is impossible for people to not notice all these explosives and det-cord being strung all around the building in order to do a controlled demolition. Further, nobody had ever done a demolition starting in the middle of a building on a structure this size. It'd be too highly experimental to pull off twice.

There was one of those demolition shows on one of the science stations a little while back, about a demolition family. They were saying how it takes weeks of prep work to do a basic building, sometimes longer.

[HeretikSaint]

There was one of those demolition shows on one of the science stations a little while back, about a demolition family. They were saying how it takes weeks of prep work to do a basic building, sometimes longer.

Nah, apparently you only need to mix thermite and paint together and paint in the walls. That should do the trick for just about anything. (sarcasm)

[hdood]

Still waiting for that list of buildings similar to the WTC that have been hit by large planes. Presumably it doesn't exist, since the conspiracy theorists have just ignored the request and moved onto something else. Classic strategy.

Anyway, the buildings did not free fall. If it was slowed as much as a millisecond, it did not fall at free fall speed. Near free fall would be a more correct term (although much of the core remained standing for 20 seconds after the floors and perimeter columns collapsed). "Free fall" is just an irrelevant conspiracy buzzword here. I don't know why people think the lower part of the building was an issue. It simply wasn't designed to handle the massive dynamic load (the top floors had downward momentum). It was only designed to handle the static load. I already explained how much the floors below could handle:

The average load in the WTC was 80 pounds per square feet (although higher for the mechanical floors). Each floor was 31,000 square feet. 80*31,000=2.5 million. Divide that by the amount the intact floors below could handle, and you get 29m/2.5m=11.6. In other words, they could have supported the static load of about 11 floors. Since the load was dynamic, divide it by the dynamic amplification factor, and you get 11.6/2=5.8. At most six floors.

There were more floors than that in the initial collapse. As the collapse progressed, more and more mass was added, further increasing the downward momentum.

People here claim the rest of the building should have substantially slowed or stopped the collapse, but the math simply does not appear to support this. When it comes to something like this, you can't just go with what you "think" should happen. Isn't it more interesting to learn the facts? I think so.

[brentaal]

Your status says "s1k3sT is on a mission to free himself from the tyranny most people call democracy."

What kind of government do you prefer?

[Mr. Gibs]

The fact that planes can't collapse buildings should be enough to turn heads.

Yes they can. In the case of a large plane exploding, it can cause severe stress on the building which may lead to it collapsing onto itself. Guess what? Metal (and to a lesser extent cement) expands when its heated, and when you have a massive plane explosion causing metal to rapidly expand what's going to happen? Oh that's right, the cement around the steel tubes and frames are going to crack. What happens when they crack? Oh that part starts to break off and since the plane didn't hit the very top of the building it causes even more stress since the middle / upper middle of the building is already extremely weak and cannot support the weight of the floors above it.

Or that you can't make cellphone calls from as high in the air as those planes were.

I'm a pilot and where I fly there aren't any tall buildings to redirect and amplify cell phone signals, and yet I can get a 3G signal above 3000ft (900m give or take). In metropolitan cities, such as New York / Hong Kong etc, microwave amplifies are often built on top of buildings since it saves you the trouble of having to build a tower. So yes you can make calls from pretty high up.

Not to mention satellite phones, which do exist in small handheld form, that can make calls from literally anywhere on Earth.

Then the building shouldn't have fallen at free fall speed, but they did. At the very least you have to admit there is something funny with building 7. It has been proven to have fallen at free fall speed and it wasn't even hit by a plane!

I was talking about the free fall collapse. The fail is on you.

Ahhh so you were there measuring the exact rate of collapse and using your infinite knowledge of maths and physics you determined this to be exactly 9.81m/s^2. Amazing, and here I was doubting your common sense. Pure genius you are.

---

There are plenty of models designed and tested by people who actually know what they're doing, and they all come to the same conclusion. The planes caused the buildings collapse. But nope, obviously all you conspiracy theorists (some of who don't even have engineering degrees) seem to know more than the people who can do the maths.

I mean lets assume it was a controlled demolition for a minute. Don't you think someone in the building would have noticed the miles and miles of cord, or the tons of explosives strung around the building? Maybe the government paid all those people off.

[Stetson]

I mean lets assume it was a controlled demolition for a minute. Don't you think someone in the building would have noticed the miles and miles of cord, or the tons of explosives strung around the building? Maybe the government paid all those people off.

That's generally the flaw in most conspiracy theories. A few government agencies do carry out completely secret operations and do a fairly good job and keeping them so, but part of what makes that work is by limiting those in the know and affected by the operation to an absolute minimum. Secrecy in an operation involving a few or few dozen people doesn't scale to one where hundreds and hundreds of people would have to be involved and has an affect on thousands.

[00000000000000000000000000]

If you want to prove that some part of the administration is directly responsible for 9~11 don't go with demolition theories because that's the direction they would what you to head (it's called a dead end).

There is no concrete evidence to prove anything aside from the official story, but history proves that governments have used false flag attacks to go to war.

Mainstream media won't question 9~11 for several reasons and I agree in some part for peaceful purposes. Elements of the previous administration were above the law and nothing could stop their actions and it's something that society has learnt to accept.

Just don't forget many so-called "truthers" are trolls and will misguide those who are confused about the events just to give a bad rep to the whole truth movement. I say don't waste your time and move on.

I'll throw this in the fire

September 10th 2001

Actually they did

[hdood]

Why not add it to the existing 9/11 thread?

Also, why can't people have (such as the Bush administration, if that's what you believe) simply have taken advantage of the situation without having to have caused it?

And how come we never hear conspiracy theories that say Bush just (indirectly?) recruited a few crazies to hijack a few planes? Why does it have to be this giant conspiracy that half the population would have to be in on. I mean, there's no evidence to support such a theory, but at least it makes sense on some level.

[Nihilus]

If you want to prove that some part of the administration is directly responsible for 9~11 don't go with demolition theories because that's the direction they would what you to head (it's called a dead end).

There is no concrete evidence to prove anything aside from the official story, but history proves that governments have used false flag attacks to go to war.

Mainstream media won't question 9~11 for several reasons and I agree in some part for peaceful purposes. Elements of the previous administration were above the law and nothing could stop their actions and it's something that society has learnt to accept.

Just don't forget many so-called "truthers" are trolls and will misguide those who are confused about the events just to give a bad rep to the whole truth movement. I say don't waste your time and move on.

I'll throw this in the fire

September 10th 2001

Actually they did

Wait, so someone made a few vague statements the day before and inside of a day they somehow orchestrated this to divert media attention?

[s1k3sT]

Your status says "s1k3sT is on a mission to free himself from the tyranny most people call democracy."

What kind of government do you prefer?

How about a constitutional republic?! Which is what the US is supposed to be!

I can't believe there are still people that believe the official conspiracy theory. First time in history fire brought down steel structured buildings, and wtc7 wasn't even hit by a plane.

[Nick H. Supervisor]

Conspiracy (courtesy of Google's "define"):

• A secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
  
• A plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
  

Basically, even with the video link you've provided, it's still a conspiracy.

The question is, did it happen in the way the tinfoils say it did? Either way, I don't care. It happened and was a huge tragedy. Before we look back and dissect how it happened, I suggest we solve the situation we have found ourselves in because of it. Then we can look back and say, "How did that happen?"

[Mr. Gibs]

I can't believe there are still people that believe the official conspiracy theory

And I can't believe you're posting a youtube video as proof. Really now. Brb, making a youtube video that shows aliens caused the WTC collapse. I promise to make it look real, and I'll also make a fancy little program which will calculate the physics of it for me.

First time in history fire brought down steel structured buildings, and wtc7 wasn't even hit by a plane.

Do you even understand what heat does to steel? As for first time, really now. How many times have you heard of a commerical airliner crashing into a building the size of the WTC? Or any large skyscraper infact. Also this wasn't some carpet fire or anything, it was an explosion; a large amount of energy expelled in an extremely short amount of time. Look at the Oklahoma City Bombings; a relatively small building was taken down by 4,800 pounds of fertilizer. 737's, on the other hand, have anywhere between 25,000 to 42,000 pounds of fuel on board.

---

But because you're so stubborn, I want you to explain this to me.

1. How come nobody noticed any explosives, odd wires, demolition equipment in all 3 buildings? Did the government pay off a select few and left the rest to die?

2. How come all credible reports, stuff like National Geographic, all point to the plane causing the building to fall? Did the government pay off all those architects, physicists, mathematicians?

3. Bush took power in January, so you're telling me that in 9 months he managed to orchestrate a massive conspiracy that would cause the collapse of 3 buildings, the crash of 5 planes, thousands of lives without anyone noticing something odd? Oh maybe the pilots, the TSA staff, the terrorists on board the plane, the building cleaners, all were on board too and got a nice cash payoff. Or maybe everyone who did find something odd was instantly killed off, including their families, never to be heard from again.

4. Now in order for your conspiracy theory of controlled demolitions to work, the terrorists on board had to be in on the plan. So you're telling me Al Qaeda and the US Government were working together? Or maybe, there were no terrorists on board; I mean the US government could have faked tons of airport security videos, airline tickets, passports, cell phone calls.

I probably won't get any real answers to those questions from you, so I want you to do the following.

1. Build a tower to the exact specifications, using the exact same materials, with the exact same number of people in the building in the exact same positions they were in during 9/11.

2. Build a second tower with the same stuff as above.

3. Get 2 commercial airlines with the exact same amount of fuel on board that they had on that day when they crashed into the building, with the same number of people on board.

4. Crash both airlines into building.

5. Record results.

6. Post on forum.

But since that's not going to happen all your conclusive youtube videos or lengthy reports written by 40 year old unemployed men living in their parents basements are bull****. Of course the same applies to the reports that say this was due to the plane crash, but why do I choose to believe those? They provide the proof, and the people who calculate it usually have credible degrees and are experts in their field. On the other hand all the conspiracy theorist reports are random youtube videos and people claiming to know what they're talking about.

[s1k3sT]

And I can't believe you're posting a youtube video as proof. Really now. Brb, making a youtube video that shows aliens caused the WTC collapse. I promise to make it look real, and I'll also make a fancy little program which will calculate the physics of it for me.

Do you even understand what heat does to steel? As for first time, really now. How many times have you heard of a commerical airliner crashing into a building the size of the WTC? Or any large skyscraper infact. Also this wasn't some carpet fire or anything, it was an explosion; a large amount of energy expelled in an extremely short amount of time. Look at the Oklahoma City Bombings; a relatively small building was taken down by 4,800 pounds of fertilizer. 737's, on the other hand, have anywhere between 25,000 to 42,000 pounds of fuel on board.

---

But because you're so stubborn, I want you to explain this to me.

1. How come nobody noticed any explosives, odd wires, demolition equipment in all 3 buildings? Did the government pay off a select few and left the rest to die?

2. How come all credible reports, stuff like National Geographic, all point to the plane causing the building to fall? Did the government pay off all those architects, physicists, mathematicians?

3. Bush took power in January, so you're telling me that in 9 months he managed to orchestrate a massive conspiracy that would cause the collapse of 3 buildings, the crash of 5 planes, thousands of lives without anyone noticing something odd? Oh maybe the pilots, the TSA staff, the terrorists on board the plane, the building cleaners, all were on board too and got a nice cash payoff. Or maybe everyone who did find something odd was instantly killed off, including their families, never to be heard from again.

4. Now in order for your conspiracy theory of controlled demolitions to work, the terrorists on board had to be in on the plan. So you're telling me Al Qaeda and the US Government were working together? Or maybe, there were no terrorists on board; I mean the US government could have faked tons of airport security videos, airline tickets, passports, cell phone calls.

I probably won't get any real answers to those questions from you, so I want you to do the following.

1. Build a tower to the exact specifications, using the exact same materials, with the exact same number of people in the building in the exact same positions they were in during 9/11.

2. Build a second tower with the same stuff as above.

3. Get 2 commercial airlines with the exact same amount of fuel on board that they had on that day when they crashed into the building, with the same number of people on board.

4. Crash both airlines into building.

5. Record results.

6. Post on forum.

But since that's not going to happen all your conclusive youtube videos or lengthy reports written by 40 year old unemployed men living in their parents basements are bull****. Of course the same applies to the reports that say this was due to the plane crash, but why do I choose to believe those? They provide the proof, people know who they are, and they have nothing to gain by lying to the entire world. On the other hand all the conspiracy theorist reports are random youtube videos and people claiming to know what they're talking about.

What's funny is that I provided a peer reviewed scientific study proving there was thermite, yet everyone ignores this, I wonder why? I saw everyone else posting videos so I posted one, I should have known someone like you would come out claiming to know the video to be wrong. If you know it's wrong debate the facts, don't try some sneaky way out of it like making personal insults. Everyone else is allowed to post videos, but not me right? If you don't agree with the video that's great, but it would help us to believe your conspiracy theory if you could explain why you think what you do.

Go on believing your kooky conspiracy theories, all us "truthers" will stay on the path to truth, wherever it leads us!

Why don't you setup the model thing you explained? After all it isn't the truthers that have a position to defend, we simply say we don't agree with the official conspiracy theory. If you agree with the official conspiracy theory than it is up to you to share your special knowledge with us.

[Mr. Gibs]

What's funny is that I provided a peer reviewed scientific study proving there was thermite, yet everyone ignores this and focuses on everything else, I wonder why. I see everyone else posting videso so I posted one, I should have known someone like you would come out claiming to know the video to be wrong.

So one video, done by one person, based on a video he posted, without any sort of facts or data he collected, is now scientific evidence? I mean who is this guy and why haven't I heard of him? He must seriously be an expert in Architecture and Engineering.

Oh but he did make a fancy little program to do it, hence it must be completely accurate. I mean all those other people who spent thousands of dollars making models, writing and testing computer simulations, hours of calculations are obviously all wrong. Because this guy made a program based of a video to calculate it.

If you know it's wrong debate the facts, don't try some sneaky way out of it like making personal insults

What facts? All that guy did was pull random quotes from the official report and make a video of it. I don't see a list of calculations based of data he collected.

Don't you think that if the US government spent so many months planning such a conspiracy to cause the collapse of 2 buildings, they would have at least paid more attention to the third one standing by it? Did they just expect people to not realize it went missing? I mean according to you this conspiracy was so big that they planned for every eventuality but they completely forgot about this tiny little building. Yeh ok.

Also where are the answers to my questions huh? I mean you know so much about this topic you should at least be able to answer 1 of the 4 major ones I asked you. And if you so want to prove me wrong why don't you go make what I told you to, even a scaled down accurate model would work perfectly, and you can computer simulate the whole thing if you want, using a professional and proven program of course. At the very least find me a video that does that, and comes with a report that has all the facts collected, all the data shown, all the calculations shown, and then a conclusion drawn. And THEN I will believe you.

[s1k3sT]

Also where are the answers to my questions huh? I mean you know so much about this topic you should at least be able to answer 1 of the 4 major ones I asked you.

I don't like to speculate and that's all your question were asking me to do. I leave the speculation up to the conspiracy theorists, like the ones that believe the official conspiracy theory, like you.

So one video, done by one person, based on a video he posted, without any sort of facts or data he collected, is now scientific evidence? I mean who is this guy and why haven't I heard of him? He must seriously be an expert in Architecture and Engineering.

Oh but he did make a fancy little program to do it, hence it must be completely accurate. I mean all those other people who spent thousands of dollars making models, writing and testing computer simulations, hours of calculations are obviously all wrong. Because this guy made a program based of a video to calculate it.

What facts? All that guy did was pull random quotes from the official report and make a video of it. I don't see a list of calculations based of data he collected.

When I mentioned scientific evidence I was referring to this link. The video I posted was something different.

[Mr. Gibs]

I don't like to speculate and that's all your question were asking me to do. I leave the speculation up to the conspiracy theorists, like the ones that believe the official conspiracy theory, like you.

Not to mention you want us to speculate on your bull****, based of a video that wouldn't even pass a high school scientific report assessment, but you have no answers to some very obvious questions. Odd how all you 9/11 truthers have no answers to them either.

The Bush Administration must have been a pure genius to have accomplished such a cover-up.

When I mentioned scientific evidence I was referring to this link. The video I posted was something different.

What evidence? A small paragraph with some citations? I can tell you right now that some of those chemicals exist in jet fuel, or are by-products of jet fuel being burnt.

[s1k3sT]

And if you so want to prove me wrong why don't you go make what I told you to, even a scaled down accurate model would work perfectly, and you can computer simulate the whole thing if you want, using a professional and proven program of course. At the very least find me a video that does that, and comes with a report that has all the facts collected, all the data shown, all the calculations shown, and then a conclusion drawn. And THEN I will believe you.

Sorry, but I'm not here to prove anyone wrong, I couldn't care less. It is up to you as someone that believes the official conspiracy theory to prove your beliefs, us "truther" are just skeptics. Sense you are making the claim of knowing a certain conspiracy theory it is up to you to prove your theory to be true, NOT us.

Go read my very next line.

Not to mention you want us to speculate on your bull****, based of a video that wouldn't even pass a high school scientific report assessment, but you have no answers to some very obvious questions. Odd how all you 9/11 truthers have no answers to them either.

The Bush Administration must have been a pure genius to have accomplished such a cover-up.

I don't want any speculation, I just want the facts. Still haven't been able to "debunk" this have you?

What evidence? A small paragraph with some citations? I can tell you right now that some of those chemicals exist in jet fuel, or are by-products of jet fuel being burnt.

The pdf file that is linked to on the linked page. There is no way for them to have combined like they did by coincidence.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

wrong, it is the conspiracy theorist that hold the burden of proof. You are the one that must prove your conspiracy theory.

[+Anarkii Subscriber²]

There is no consiracy. Muslim extremeists did it.

It also happened 9 years ago. Get over it.

[Mr. Gibs]

Sorry, but I'm not here to prove anyone wrong, I couldn't care less. It is up to you as someone that believes the official conspiracy theory to prove your beliefs, us "truther" are just skeptics.

LOL so you made an entire thread, posting almost 3 times on each page because you don't want to prove something. Really now.

I think you're confused.

Sense you are making the claim of knowing a certain conspiracy theory it is up to you to prove your theory to be true, NOT us.

So why do all you theorists come up with youtube videos, retard reports, websites when you don't want to prove something?

I mean the last I heard of an official report, or even a credible report from a company that has experts working for them was years ago. But still here we are in 2010 and you "truthers" are still posting stuff about how it was a massive cover up and how the rest of the us are idiots. Ok then.

The pdf file that is linked to on the linked page. There is no way for them to have combined like they did by coincidence.

Really now.

Aluminothermics - Planes are made of aluminum. Iron is obtained from numerous sources within the building and some on the plane itself like in the engine.

Benzene - Used to make numerous substances, including rubber and styrene. Not to mention it is used in both automotive and jet fuel.

Styrene - Used to make tons of products, I mean I'm sure you've heard of polystyrene. And it is an office block after all.

Sulfur - Fuel.

Silicon compounds - I wonder if the thousands and thousands of electronics in the building had something to do with that. Or maybe there was a porn star with size ZZZZZZZZZ breasts there at the time.

Oh and heres something to debunk your theory. http://www.911myths.com/html/sol-gel__thermite_and_the_wtc.html