9/11 conspiracies are nonsense

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
The best facial recognition software is the human brain.

No it's not. The best facial recognition hardware is the computer. They can tell differences between nearly identical faces where humans can not.


I'm not sure what you mean by the coveruppies comment BTW.

Coveruppies="them"

And have you looked at Osama, then at the man in the video?

I once did, he does look a bit different but the quality of all those clips are lousy.
With so many flaws, different perspectives and colorings I don't know what to make of it. I would rather have had that al-queda invested in some good cameras than that second hand ebay crap they apparently are using now.


What I'm saying is, if there can't be a consensus of eyewitness accounts, then we can't rely on those acounts. We have to look at the evidence, and so far I've seen none..


That's is rather peculiar reasoning, 9/11 conspiracy theorists used eyewitness accounts to their advantage whenever it suits them, even if there are opposing witnesses. There isn't a single piece of evidence that you can't find another expert for with a different opinion but that doesn't mean all those statements and opinions should be ignored.




Yes there is, I've seen it and collected it after burning it myself. I said it was found with molten steel. Steel can't melt at the temperatures that supposedly brought dwn the building, so the thermite is the only reasonable explaination. give me a better one and maybe I'll change my mind.

I don't think we are on one line here. Burned thermite is aluminiumoxide and iron. Since there was melten aluminium and iron in any case because of the hot temperatures, how do you know what you collected?


So, you're saying that after they crashed into the towers, there was no swaying? well there was, and it was a lot less than the swaying that high winds can do.

Ehm no im not saying that there was no swaying. Im saying that it was not the swaying that took the towers down but an unholy combination of infernal temperatures, the shock of impact, and the weight of the collapsed regions on the already weakened lower structures.




they were security cameras. I doubt anyone reviewed them before they were confiscated, what with all the explosions and sirens and all.

My appologies! I had not realized that they where security cameras. I can see why it makes you suspicious, and I find it odd too, but if they prepared for such an attack, and are so good at faking evidence, why didn't they give fake footage to the public?


Black boxes have survived much greater impacts. Tat's wht they were designed to do.
But this NOT the first time a black box does NOT survive.


Yep. Would war be waged over 10 deaths? Would Haliburton have such a contract if it were only a few casualties?

If there was a terrorist attack that failed at the last moment, it would have been enough. Even one plane could have done. I mean, it's not like the american government asked anyone for permission? They ignored pretty much everyones opinion. They could even have faked polls, why would it be necessary to make such a dramatically overstatement?




posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Having an open mind also allows to make quite extravagant ideas about a situation.

The possibilities are endless.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by kipman725
www.gieis.uni.cc...

I don't think you have reserched the thermite claim enough. The sample also had magnesium and sulpher which along with aluminium and iron oxide is used to produce a type if thermite used for ctting structural steel. The sample also had evedince in the changes in its structure to show that it had been heated far more intensley than any office fire.


Im listnening. Can you give me a link where it actually says that magnesium and sulpher was found? Preferably an official rapport, if you get what I mean.
It all depents on quantities too, I thought sulpher is normally found in industrialized iron, and magnesium is also used in aeronatics.

[edit on 28-6-2006 by reallynobody]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I think its thermate, not thermite.
And I believe this is the source
Thermate is supposedly military grade, not sure though,
I believe its all explained in that paper.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   
And building 7?

THe problem is that if one aspect is shown to be pre planned, (building 7) then the whole thing ends up on 'conspiracy' list.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by aecreate
I think its thermate, not thermite.
And I believe this is the source
Thermate is supposedly military grade, not sure though,
I believe its all explained in that paper.


Hm. Thermite + sulphure = thermate. New to me.
I still don't know what to make of it. When would those charges be placed exactly?
During construction? During maintenance?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Reallynobody, you seem to have a good sense of reality. Welcome to the dark side.


Certainly all the theories are nonsense, many of them are actually pretty funny.

Enjoy your self here.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
And building 7?

THe problem is that if one aspect is shown to be pre planned, (building 7) then the whole thing ends up on 'conspiracy' list.

So building 7 collapsed without any plane hitting it, that is indeed weird, but it is also weird that the shadies would then collapse it?

That is the primary problem I have with such far-fetched conspiracies. It would require both genius and stupidity, genius to pull off such an attack, and stupidity to make such mistakes.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Reallynobody, you seem to have a good sense of reality. Welcome to the dark side.


Certainly all the theories are nonsense, many of them are actually pretty funny.

Enjoy your self here.


Is that an Escher LEGO building?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Yes, a remarkable feat of design and engineering.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by aecreate
I think its thermate, not thermite.
And I believe this is the source
Thermate is supposedly military grade, not sure though,
I believe its all explained in that paper.


Military uses
Thermite grenades are used as incendiary devices to quickly destroy items or equipment when there is imminent danger of them being captured by enemy forces. Because of the difficulty in igniting standard iron-thermite, plus the fact that it burns with practically no flame and has a small radius of action, standard thermite is rarely used on its own as an incendiary composition. It is more usually employed with other ingredients added to enhance its incendiary effects. Thermate-TH3 is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulphur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and significantly reduces the ignition temperature. Although the primary purpose of Thermate-TH3 is as an incendiary, it will also weld metal surfaces together.

Thermite enables infantry to permanently disable artillery pieces without the use of explosive charges and therefore operate with a reasonable amount of stealth. There are two methods of disabling an artillery piece with thermite and both require that the barrel be elevated to a high angle. The best method is to open the breech of the weapon, insert an armed thermite grenade and then quickly close the breech. The molten thermite permanently welds the breech of the artillery piece shut, making it impossible to open and load the weapon. An alternative method is to insert an armed thermite grenade down the muzzle of the artillery piece, thereby allowing molten steel to weld itself to the inside of the rifled barrel. A partial barrel obstruction makes it impossible to fire the artillery piece without the barrel bursting.
en.wikipedia.org...


so was any nitrate or other nitrogen compounds found?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
did ya read the paper by Steven E. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy,
Brigham Young University that I linked to?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I am with you 100% Reallynobody. There was a link the other day that countered a lot of their theories , www.popularmechanics.com...,
but of course you know they will say the govt. put them up to publishing this.
Everybody knows Popular Mechanics Magazine is run by the govt. (sarcasm)



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody

Claim 4) There was thermite found in the remains of the WTC rubble! This means that it was all a set-up.

Counterclaim) Thermite is a big word. Thermite is a mixture of powdered aluminium and iron oxide (rust). So what did people find that got all the tin-hatties excited? Microscopic bits of aluminium and rusty iron.

Considering that two mostly aluminium planes just crashed into two steel and iron filled towers: is it TRULY surprising?

I guess researchers published findings on analysis of the rubble, and some conspiracy theorists took the wrong conclusions.


That's like throwing salt in a big ass pot of water, also if you say it was welders who made it seem like termite. I would like to add that when they demolish buildings........ Steel buildings for that matter they use an oxy/acetylene to cut the metal, so that argument is invalid also.


Originally posted by reallynobody
Claim 5) No building ever collapsed because of a fire!

Counterclaim) Did those buildings had planes fly into them?
(On a side not I doubt that no building ever collapsed after a fire, some buildings rely heavily on wood reinforcements, so at most no STONE building ever collapsed because of fire. Although I doubt that as well.)



Claim 6) The two towers where engineered to withstand impacts of planes. This proves that planes could not have brought it down!

Counterclaim) Was it tested? Where there planes flown against the towers which then bounced back or something?





This is wrong. They made the towers to withstand a 707 at the time it was built. Think of it like this. From the person who made the towers he compared it to a screen door... You throw a pencil in there everything just doesn't fall, it stays put.

Same thing wit the towers. I am going to mention the squibs on here for this point.

Counter act that.. tell us why squibs are all over both towers when they fell. Well before the main part started falling on top of it.


Originally posted by reallynobody
A part of a French airport terminal collapsed once because of lousy architecture.
If it is so difficult designing something based on a known concept, I can imagine
how difficult it must be to design something that you can't even test.


That was shoddy construction, after the investigation they blamed it on the design of the structure..

The towers were standing for well over 30 yrs and withstood alot.. let alone a bomb attack on 93.

And no I didnt read the whole thread, I couldnt get past all the dribble you were saying.


Originally posted by reallynobody
Claim 1) Osama was not behind it because he wears a ring in one of the videos. Islamics aren't SUPPOSED to wear jewellery so it couldnt have been Bin Laden so it must have been American agents in disguise.

Counterclaim) Islamics aren't allowed to wear jewellery, but they aren't allowed to have their picture taken or put on film either. Osama doesn't have a problem with that does he?! There have been terrorist attacks on friday too, even though friday is an islamic restday. Guess Islamic terrorists don't care about religious rules afterall when it suits them.


so you are saying that this last guy is Bin Laden?



[edit on 6/28/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   
and someone just posted some nice pictures on this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...#



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   


3) How could anyone mistake a missile for a plane? If they thought it was a plane then it ain't a missile. There is a HUGE difference between them, the sound alone is deafening if it was a missile. Go watch some footage of both.


Missiles seem to sound almost exactly the same at as a 747 when it is cruising at top speed. Ever heard a plane take off? Imagine that times about three.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
It is a bit difficult with that kind of quality pictures, the last one does seem like it is more a blob of ink then bin laden. Are you saying that the one video which supposedly does not star bin laden also happens to be the lowest quality? That does not help to convince me.

If it wasn't bin laden, "they" sure managed to fool a lot of people! They even fooled family members of bin laden, unless you have a statement that that wasn't their son cousin or nephew. Not even bin laden seems to find anything strange enough to mention.

AS I SAID BEFORE
how come noone with facial recognition software found out about it?
Do none of the many thousands of institutes where such software is present
have any curious/paranoid people on payrole? Or where scans performed but the results confirmed that it was bin laden?

Im not sure why people are hangup on this bin laden stuff. It's not like the whole conspiracy falls or stands with it?!



[edit on 28-6-2006 by reallynobody]

[edit on 28-6-2006 by reallynobody]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semiazas


3) How could anyone mistake a missile for a plane? If they thought it was a plane then it ain't a missile. There is a HUGE difference between them, the sound alone is deafening if it was a missile. Go watch some footage of both.


Missiles seem to sound almost exactly the same at as a 747 when it is cruising at top speed. Ever heard a plane take off? Imagine that times about three.


OK I suppose there are many types of missiles. But the eye witnesses clearly describe a plane. Was it a missile disguised as a plane?

If it really was a missile it would have been a mad thing to do, someone might have had a camera pointing at the right time and then the gov would be screwed! It would take almost ridiculously meticulous planning and I can't imagine any government as being that good. They usually can't even go for 1 month without embarasing themselves over something.

Let's say it really was a missile. What happened to the plane? Not easy to get rid of with all the airtraffic radar and people around. Did they use cloaking fields?
Teleporters?

[edit on 28-6-2006 by reallynobody]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody

Originally posted by Semiazas


3) How could anyone mistake a missile for a plane? If they thought it was a plane then it ain't a missile. There is a HUGE difference between them, the sound alone is deafening if it was a missile. Go watch some footage of both.


Missiles seem to sound almost exactly the same at as a 747 when it is cruising at top speed. Ever heard a plane take off? Imagine that times about three.


OK I suppose there are many types of missiles. But the eye witnesses clearly describe a plane. Whas it a missile disguised as a plane? What a dangeous thing to do anyway, someone might have had a camera pointing at the right time and then the gov would be screwed! Sure lucky thing that didnt happen hehe.

Let's say it really was a missile. What happened to the plane? Not easy to get rid of with all the airtraffic radar and people around. Did they use cloaking fields?
Teleporters?

A cruise missile could be easily disguised as a plane with a few stripes and logo. Also, ATC's ( Air Traffic Controllers ) lost track of Flight 93 because the hijackers supposedly turned off the tracking beacon. So it really would not be hard to turn off the tracking beacon, get rid of the plane ( which could be done many ways..shot down over ocean, landed and taken in hangar - repainted ), and as for the people on board...if 2000+ are already dead in the hands of the government, 200 more would be nothing.

* O and for your camera comment, a local gas station had a camera pointing at the building along with a hotel....these cameras' tapes were taken by federal agents minutes after the crash.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join