What would prove to you that 9/11 was not a conspiracy?

Originally posted by johndri
I'd like to see that Silverstein fellow answer questions under oath.

Well we know he lied when he stated PULL IT meant the firemen in building 7 bacause the firemen were evacuated out of the building early in the day by Chief Nigro.

Also the fact that Silverstein had no authority over the firemen, and that the only reason for the fire commander to call Silverstein was to tell him they could not save the building.

reply to post by Dmantex

Let's assume for the purpose of this discussion that the events of 9/11/01 was not a "terrorist" conspiracy of 19 cave dwellers, as the official government version of the events portrays.

How could I convince you otherwise?

7 years have passed already. Nothing will prove that 9/11 was not a government conspiracy.
That was their main goal that too much time will pass before people realize that all that case was a conspiracy.
Look at the Hollywood movies, they show Star Wars look real but it's not real so what's the point to show us the real video of the plane falling on the Pentagon? I'll never believe that is is a real video and not faked.

reply to post by Whodunnit
Hi Whodunnit,

As a retired volunteer firefighter, I can validate your statement that yes, ventilation holes are indeed cut to vent heat and to allow smoke to escape. However they are cut over the hot spots because heated air does rise as you know. As heat escapes the flash-over temp is reached and goes below flash-over point, so crews can then enter safely. I just find it hard to believe that red hot steel could be found 6 weeks after the building collapsed without oxygen feeding it. Under tons and tons of debris, including choking concrete dust. remove the oxygen supply, a fire can not burn, unless rocket fuel is used which, supplies it's own oxygen if I remember correctly. As for thermite, I have no idea how that works.

To thatsjustweird,

You said Clinton must be a murderer too, Have you ever heard of PNAC? If not google it, these attacks could have been planned well in advance by PNAC, they just needed to get one of their patsies to be "elected" to office, Isn't it a "conspiracy theory" that the 2000 elections were stolen by the neo-cons? then again in 2004?

On topic, I need an unretouched video of an airliner hitting the Pentagon, the videos we have all seen were not a 757 or 767. Didn't I read somewhere in this forum that the video box at the pentagon was about 200 yards from the impact point? 600 feet huh? go to your nearest airport, watch planes take off and land. look at them at their gates, I'd bet that you are well over 200 yards from them at any point, then think back to the video, the planes you saw at the airport are still much larger than the alleged plane in the video, you are more than likely at least a quarter mile away from them at that point., more likely at least a half mile, and they still are much larger than the "plane" in the video.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
What? Are you trying to show an example of political baiting, or just pure ingnorance?

What does the planning of 9/11 have to do with Clinton?

lol
The same as the carrying out of 9/11 has to do with Bush.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have not made up my mind that the government is responsible for anything.

That makes you a minority.

And what evidence do you have to present that you claim is being ignored?

Well this board for one...

I don't see how a new investigation could possibly conclude that a lone terrorist cell, or even a closed network, carried out 9/11 considering the substantial evidence to the contrary that has already been brought forth.

Care to challenge any of that evidence?

The evidence (that other parties besides terrorists are involved) is circumstantial at best. Sure I'd like the challenge that evidence, to show it wouldn't hold up in court. That's where you want to get to. Evidence that will hold up.


(My personal thoughts is that the government may not have carried out the attacks, but were responsible. Knowing how bad the shared info between our intel agencies was combined with our arrogant complacency, I think that something like that was bound to happen sooner or later. We could have prevented it, but I haven't seen solid evidence that we purposely didn't prevent it. )

1. Video of the plane hitting the Pentagon. Not the mis-dated vid we have with no plane.
   
2. Explain the molten steel
   
3. The whole cell phone always working on the planes thing
   

There's more, but I'm just putting those out there to answer your question.
I don't really know if anything could make me 100% sure there wasn't a conspiracy.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
[
Are you claiming that your pot of beans actually gets hotter than the blue flame coming out of your burner?

Heat can be trapped, I will agree with that, but that does not mean that the temperature will increase beyond the temperature of the heat source.

Agreed. (Pot of beans? Reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles. LOLOL!!!!)

Are you claiming that actual temps, as measured by the structural fire engineering firm I linked to DIDN'T have temps measured at 1100-1300C?

I think the problem many of you have is that you believe and quote sources that give accurate, but misleading info about the temps of various fires/fuel sources in the 'open', and then use this accurate but misleading info to argue the point that office fires can't get that hot. The difference being that the office fires/rubble fires weren't in the 'open', but were under conditions similar to the tests I linked to. There's a difference that you must recognize to get over this.

What I'm saying is that your sources aren't applicable to this situation. You MUST use a source that measures temps that uses similar burning conditions - limited air, fuel, heat 'trapped', etc. Otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges.

Originally posted by saturnsrings

As a retired volunteer firefighter, I can validate your statement that yes, ventilation holes are indeed cut to vent heat and to allow smoke to escape. However they are cut over the hot spots because heated air does rise as you know. As heat escapes the flash-over temp is reached and goes below flash-over point, so crews can then enter safely. I just find it hard to believe that red hot steel could be found 6 weeks after the building collapsed without oxygen feeding it. Under tons and tons of debris, including choking concrete dust. remove the oxygen supply, a fire can not burn, unless rocket fuel is used which, supplies it's own oxygen if I remember correctly. As for thermite, I have no idea how that works.

I used to volunteer also, so thanks for having my back. Had to quit after some back surgery. Our best story was were we sitting across the street from the firehouse having a couple cocktails and there was a wreck right in front of the bar. Oops !! So someone ran across the road and brought over the truck, etc. Coulda got in BIIIIG trouble for that one, but it was 20 yrs ago and things were a little more lax. Haha...

Red hot steel is around 900C, not all that hot, really, and well below the temps found by the infrared gun, sat images, etc. And there was air feeding it just fine. Various photos will show smoke rising. Smoke out = air out. Air out means you have air going in. There's no way around that fact. But the most inportant issue is again, the heat being 'trapped', using layman's terms.

I've already explained the office/rubble fire temps under limited ventilation conditions. You know how this is. It's a true source so go check it yourself.

reply to post by Whodunnit

You guys too huh? Off topic here, yes the rules were waaaayyyyy lax back in the day, there were many many things that the guy's today could get in real trouble for that, back then everyone looked the other way, and more likely most were the same as we were. Ah, those were the days, I've been retired for almost 13 years and I miss it, but I'm only 46 now.

Sorry for going off topic here, just fun to reminisce with a fellow former volunteer.

Originally posted by saturnsringsAs for thermite, I have no idea how that works.

Thermite creates its own oxygen as it burns. So it could burn for weeks under the debris with no need for oxygen.

Plus we have reports, videos, and photos that pretty much show the fires in the towers were going out before the collapse.

Previously molten metal was found "flowing like lava" by the FDNY in the basements of all 3 WTC High-rises. Hydrocarbon fires can burn at a maximum temperature of 1,800°F which is about 1,000° short of the beginning melting temperature of steel. Where did the molten metal come from? Why do FEMA and NIST deny its existence?

The FEMA report notes:
"The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.... Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation." NIST dropped this like a hot potato. These are all tell tell signs of the use of thermate (sulphur + thermite) incendiary cutter charges."


Numerous Squibs (mis-timed explosions) can be seen seen 20 to 40 floors ahead of the advancing "collapse". NIST claims that they are "puffs of air" created from the pancaking floors above. But there are no pancaking floors above, they are not air but pulverized building materials, they occur precisely at the center of the building in an "open office plan", and finally they occur at over 100 feet per second — explosive speed!

The concrete and other building contents were pulverized to a thick ground hugging pyroclastic dust — much of which was

complete set of evidence , including tapes of the airplane calls , # not the mobile phones"

every tape of the pentagon flight

and a written letter from dick explaining why he was on stand down

complete set of evidence , including tapes of the airplane calls , # not the mobile phones"

every tape of the pentagon flight

and a written letter from dick explaining why he was on stand down

reply to post by jthomas


What about the bombs at ground zero?

Originally posted by SButlerv2
What about the bombs at ground zero?

Do not forget about the truck bomb that had the painting of planes crashing into New York painted on the side.

Do not forget about the Starbucks ad that simulated the WTC attack:

www.snopes.com...

Sadly, nothing will ever be able to convince me that it was not an inside job. There are far too many discrepancies. Not to mention I have a difficult time believing an attack like that would go unnoticed or un-intercepted before all damage was done. Unless, of course, it was allowed to happen.

Maybe there is hope for the rest of you, but I will always have doubts.

Originally posted by Disclosed
Do not forget about the Starbucks ad that simulated the WTC attack:

Well we have the audio from the police radios about the truck bomb and them having 2 people in custody.

Also please tell your MOD buddy at Eb that i am talking to a lawyer about him being biased and not haing a reason for banning me.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Also please tell your MOD buddy at Eb that i am talking to a lawyer about him being biased and not haing a reason for banning me.

Not sure why you are mentioning another sites issues here. If you have issues with them, you should discuss it with the site. I am only a member there, as you were before you violated their rules.
If you feel you must discuss this, please use private messages.

Please try to stay on topic.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Bangin
Not to mention I have a difficult time believing an attack like that would go unnoticed or un-intercepted before all damage was done. Unless, of course, it was allowed to happen.

Yes the government had a lot of prior warnigns about something going to happen and that it would involve hijackings.

Originally posted by Disclosed
I am only a member there, as you were before you violated their rules.
If you feel you must discuss this, please use private messages.

But the point is i did not violate the rules anymore then anyone else did. But i was the only 1 banned.

And you are a good one to talk about staying on topic.


[edit on 11-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]