If one looks at 9/11 Truth as a scam it becomes clear...

page: 13
5
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
How much money did goldman sachs make off the housing bubble collapse? Trillions.


You might want to check that.




posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by RadioactiveRob
So you two, what about the pools of molten steel at the bottom of all 3 tower collapses? The jet fuel that was burning was giving off black smoke and wasn't anywhere near hot enough to do that. Evidence of thermate was found in the dust. WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane. The hole in the side of the pentagon was too small to have been hit by a 757. But I'm sure you guys have excuses for that, being the self-appointed guardians of the official disinfo coverup story.


No, but aluminum burns at almost 7000 degrees, and the towers were entirely clad in aluminum sheathing. Plus, it's a documented fact that after the collapse, fires were buning underground for several months at near blast furnace temperatures, and it's entirely agreed this "melted steel" was all recovered from underground after the collapse. If you absolutely positively need a technical answer for the condition of the recovered wreckage based on the actual evidence rather than imaginary wanderings, junk science or armies of sinister secret boogeymen, that's the most logical answer I can offer.

Besides, this whole "Thermite" and "no plane hit the Pentagon" bit is nothing but conspiracy mongoring hoaxes meant to separate you from your money. The "No plane hit the Pentagon" hoax for example was invented by French author Thierry Meyssan to sell a bunch a books...and the guy never even stepped foot in America, let alone the Pentagon. If you want to mistrust the gov't or wish to believe there's more to the story than what we've been told, fine by me, and in fact I'd agree with you...but that doesn't mean you have to turn around and swallow all this fantastical alternative history those damned fool conspiracy web sites are shovelling out simply out of spite.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
 


They take the most extreme outcomes, of the most extreme theories, and try to convince people that it is how it always happens.

We've explained to them many times that open air fires never get to their max temperature. Or that the steel could never reach the same temp of the room, especially in an hour.


If you're genuinely attempting to claim the fires in the towers were "open air" then you're lying unrepentently through your teeth to suit your alernative history claims. The fires were burning inside the structure before the collapse, then burning underground abeneath tons of wreckage after the collapse. This is all confirmed by video and eyewitness accounts and cannot be refuted.


Or that steel losing 50% of it's load bearing capacity wouldn't cause failure. Or that jet fuel would not make the fires any hotter, as it already burns at a lower temp than an average room fire.


There's no possible way you can claim "steel losing 50% of its load bearing capacity wouldn't cause failure" with any honesty. No physical record exists that shows precidely how much damage the plane impact caused or even whoch columns were intact vs whoch ones were affected by the fires so you cannot know what forces were transferred to the steel being heated by the fires one way or the other. It's the entire reason why there are multiple theories that largely contradict each other to begin with.


Yet they still like to stick to these fallacies. It's pointless getting into arguments with them anymore. They think they've 'won' if you don't reply to them lol, silly fools. They never say anything new, that hasn't already been covered a billion times. When something is debunked, it's debunked, it's not my job to keep reminding them.


This fits the description of the conspiracy theorists nore than it applies to anyone else. These absurd "lasers from otuer space" and "no planes hit the Pentagon" absurdities have been debunked left, right, up and down and yet every week someone submits the whole nonsense all over again which in turn ignites yet another round of arguments over nothing.

Besides, you know as well as I do that every single one of your supposed "explanations" heavily depends on armies of sinister secret agents incessantly plotting to murder us all, which is hardly intellectually satisfying.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 


What is your take on it?

It would be interesting, having the knowledge you gained from both perspectives.

This is a serous question. I'm just someone who has doubts about the OS yet see where there are opportunities to capitalize on spreading misinformation by those who call themselves "truthers".
edit on 26-2-2012 by NowIsThe because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NowIsThe
 
Now, it's the US who has capitalized on the spreading of disinformation by invading countries and stealing our liberty. Don't be confused by those that would have you believe that by doubting the OS, someone is getting rich off of it. The OS, by itself, is misinformation, and anyone who defends it is either incredibly stupid, or a traitor.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by NowIsThe
 
Now, it's the US who has capitalized on the spreading of disinformation by invading countries and stealing our liberty. Don't be confused by those that would have you believe that by doubting the OS, someone is getting rich off of it. The OS, by itself, is misinformation, and anyone who defends it is either incredibly stupid, or a traitor.



So that pretty much makes every American incredibly stupid or a traitor. Now - do you really believe that? That 99.9999999% of the population is either "in on it" or soooooo stupid?



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Most Truthers manage to simultaneously believe that there is a huge section of the population with a herd-like mentality (the "sheeple") and that a large majority endorse 9/11 'Truth'. This is interesting on two counts

- it makes them a bit fascist
- it requires a huge dollop of cognitive dissonance



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by NowIsThe
 
Thanks for asking.

I think my thoughts are pretty close to yours. I've had strong doubts about the official story since mid-morning on 9/11/01, and I jumped in to this thread because I disagreed strongly with the OP's implication that the truth movement in general is a scam. After a long and interesting discussion with GoodOlDave (which isn't done yet - I'll be back soon, Dave!), I'm willing to acknowledge that there are scammers within the truth movement, and that fact unfortunately damages the credibility of all "truthers." I still believe there are lots of legitimate reasons to doubt the generally accepted narrative, and I think there's plenty of disinformation being spread on the "OS defender" side as well.

In the long run, I'm more interested in the message than the messenger - as long as we're all honestly evaluating information, and identifying misinformation, I think we should be able to have good arguments that bring us closer to whatever the truth really is.

That's my take, for what it's worth.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

...which begs the question, how can you determine that controlled demolitions were involved if you don't know how controlled demolitions work?

Well, I can't honestly determine that controlled demolitions were involved; I can only say that that's a possibility. Similarly, I can't satisfactorily explain how fire and gravity alone could cause the observed results, so I'm still trying to figure out what I don't know about each so I can make more educated assumptions. My instinctive sense is that it's more possible for people to have invented demolition techniques I don't know about than it is for fire and gravity to work in ways they never have before. But I try to remain open to provable evidence on either side.


In the terminology you've used previously, "the trap has now been sprung". Here is the best video I can find of a building of equivalent size and shape of the towers. The process shown is largely the same as the animation I posted- simply take a dozen animations and put them one on top of another-

I have a really hard time not seeing the similarities between that video and the collapses of the WTC buildings. That's not to say they're identical - there are differences - but I've never been able to find another natural collapse that looks as similar to the WTC collapses as a demolition does.


As you yourself stated, demolitions are needed to assist with the failure of floors below the collapse initiation. As you watch the video, you will notice momentary flashes up and down the length of the structure, followed soon after by much noticable flashes that initiated the actual collapse. These are the demolitions charges going off that do just that, and as you can see, they were very noticable, and the reason why is obvious- the demolitions needed to sever the outermost visible support columns to reduce the resistance of the floors as the structure collapsed.

The reason why this is relevent is because the floors in the WTC were held in air between the core columns and the columns in the outer perimeter. This necessarily means that if your supposition was correct, demolitions on the exterior columns of the WTC would be mandatory by the laws of physics...and yet as every video of the collapse of the two towers showed, no demolitions flashes on the exterior were present. Either no demolitions were actually used, or some hypothetical violation-of -the-laws-of-physics explosives that exploded invisibly and silently were used, as you agreed previously, physics necessarily would apply to the conspirators just as they do everywhere else.

Logically, either the force from the collapsing floors was enough to overcome the resistance of the stationary floors due to the unique design of the buildings, or, *nothing* actually destroyed the buildings.
I don't follow your logic here. Either it was a pancake collapse, or it didn't actually collapse? That's what I'm getting, but that can't be what you're trying to say.

I'm also not sold on your assertion that demolitions on exterior columns would be mandatory according to the laws of physics; maybe if I understood more of the technical reports I've tried to read I would have a better sense of what you're saying.


If you cannot agree that the initial point of collapse began at the vicinity of the point of impact of the planes in each building, then can you provide information that show this is wrong? Every video of the collapse I've seen shows this to be the case.
To clarify: I didn't say that it was wrong - I even said that it was "the most likely scenario given the available provable evidence." That said, I'll try to find some photos/videos that we'll both be able to accept as valid so we can discuss what we're seeing.

I'm sure you've seen clips of flashes of light, squibs, smoke at the bottom of the tower, Rodrigeuz et al describing sub-basement explosions etc, and I know you've seen the threads here laying out the case for demolition evidence, but I also know we can argue till the cows come home about whether that evidence is genuine, so I'll try to find videos from original news footage only.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat
I have a really hard time not seeing the similarities between that video and the collapses of the WTC buildings. That's not to say they're identical - there are differences - but I've never been able to find another natural collapse that looks as similar to the WTC collapses as a demolition does.


The point that I'm trying to demonstrate is that the collapse of the towers weren't controlled demolitions, but rather, the collapse of the towers as well as controlled demolitions both followed the same laws of physics that say a falling floor can have enough force to cause an intact floor to collapse.

With controlled demolitions, cutter charges are needed to dismantle the supports (as shown in the video) to weaken the intact floor and make sure that the falling floor will cause the intact floor below it to collapse. With the unique design of the towers, which didn't have any floor support other than the horizontal brace, the floors were already weak enough for that to happen so cutter charges weren't necessary. The reason why you've "never been able to find a similar collapse" is because no other building with that kind of design ever had a plane hit it. I can't even say if there even are any other buildings with that kind of design.

The key to understanding the collapse wasn't just from the fires or even the fires along with the plane impact. The key is both those events happening to that specific design of the building. The "coincidences" become much less coincidental once it's understood that the mathematics of "airplane impact" plus "fires" plus "unique building design" equals "collapse" has been proven every time the equation had been applied. If some inquisitive rich person with a billion dollars to squander built an exact replica of one of the towers and had an exact replica of a plane hit it, I can say with complete certainty it would collapse the same way.


I'm also not sold on your assertion that demolitions on exterior columns would be mandatory according to the laws of physics; maybe if I understood more of the technical reports I've tried to read I would have a better sense of what you're saying.


...in which case you're necessarily AGREEING with me that cutter charges weren't used from the point of initial collapse on down, since with the unique design of the towers, it would be like two people holding up a long, heavy object- if one person (in this case, the outside columns) dropped the load, the other person (in this case, the interior columns) would no longer be able to hold it up. I presume you still subscribe to the same "if there were conspirators, they would necessarily need to know what they were doing and wouldn't plant explosives in every broom closot and wastebasket simply for conspiracy's sake" principle that I do.


I'm sure you've seen clips of flashes of light, squibs, smoke at the bottom of the tower, Rodrigeuz et al describing sub-basement explosions etc, and I know you've seen the threads here laying out the case for demolition evidence, but I also know we can argue till the cows come home about whether that evidence is genuine, so I'll try to find videos from original news footage only.


The quibs weren't from explosives, but from air being squeezed out from the collapse of the building like an accordian. We know this because a) there were no explosive flashes, b) there wouldn't be just one or two in random locations, but all up and down along the sides of the building, and c) it's the "physics apply to your conspiracy claims just as it applies to ours" situation again since like ever other skyscraper, the towers had a controlled internal atmosphere and physics say the air had to go somewhere. BUT, as you say, every scenario has its own explanation for why these supposed squibs ocurred, so in the end, it still all comes down to finding the most reasonable reason for why the towers collapsed to begin with. Once you have that, you'll have the answer to how those squibs were produced by default.

I am actually more interested in your reluctance in accepting the fact that both towers began collapsing at the point of impact of the planes (and in a discussion to come, the point of impact of the collapsing wreckage from the north tower into WTC 7). Have you found video evidence that shows otherwise?

Go ahead and look. I'll wait.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Go ahead and look. I'll wait.

You may need to wait a little while, but I will try to get to that soon. I'm basing my opinions on research I'd done a long time ago, and it may be a matter of weeks until I have time to do that again now. Since I don't want to send you to a video that has a Dylan Avery voice over, I'll need to look through the original news footage from the day to find sources we'll both agree on (I'm confident in my recollection that that's what I'm thinking of). In the meantime, I appreciate your patience and thank you for the civil discussion and new insights.

Thanks -



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Go ahead and look. I'll wait.

You may need to wait a little while, but I will try to get to that soon. I'm basing my opinions on research I'd done a long time ago, and it may be a matter of weeks until I have time to do that again now. Since I don't want to send you to a video that has a Dylan Avery voice over, I'll need to look through the original news footage from the day to find sources we'll both agree on (I'm confident in my recollection that that's what I'm thinking of). In the meantime, I appreciate your patience and thank you for the civil discussion and new insights.

Thanks -


Not a problem. Since you yourself admit that you're going to have to root through all the Dylan Avery-style videos to look for legitimate untampered with news reels, it seems to me you're all but admitting the bulk of the truther movement is in fact made up of bad information manufactured by scammers.

While you're looking, please review this video of the south tower's collapse. It's actually a number of different videos of the collapse from multiple angles and distances that have been put together-



Not only can you see the south tower specifically collapsing at the location of the hole left behind by the plane impact, (clearly seen at .03, .33 and 2:43) you can specifically see the corner of the building crumple in at the point of the plane impact like a beer can (most clearly seen at 1:18) as well as the upper section of the building bulldozing down on the lower sections in a top down collapse (most clearly seen at 3:08). It also clearly shows the south tower hardly "fell straight down in controlled collapse", but rather the upper section tipped over on the bias of the area of the plane impact. It also shows (at .12) a large section of the exterior perimeter columns still standing upright by itself in the middle of the collapse sequence after the interior floors were already stripped off of it, just before it toppled over itself.

All of this confirms the scenario I've been laying out, and I have to point out, clearly refutes the "controlled demolitions" claims. I invite you to show how any of this is incorrect.
edit on 29-2-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Since you yourself admit that you're going to have to root through all the Dylan Avery-style videos to look for legitimate untampered with news reels, it seems to me you're all but admitting the bulk of the truther movement is in fact made up of bad information manufactured by scammers.

That's not what I said at all. I'm just saying I want to stick to evidence that we can both look at without having to argue about the validity of the source. I think most of the footage used in Loose Change is genuine, but I know you'll take issue if I use that film as a source, and I respect that, so I'll look for the original source footage instead.

I'm usually here while at work (don't tell my boss), so it's sometimes easy for me to read and post quick replies. I generally can't do video or audio though, and I'll be really busy outside of work for the next few weeks, so if you see me around the threads please don't think I'm ignoring this issue - I do want to come back to it (including the video and analysis you just posted), and I will when I have a chance.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 


There is a good interview on democracy now of two guys who set up an internet archive with more than 3000 hrs of original 911 news video footage.

If you watch the democracy now clip. There is one great piece of video from the archive that shows a news reporter standing in front of a still standing building 7 saying the building had already collapsed.


As the nation prepares to mark the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a pair of leading internet archivists are launching an ambitious project called "Understanding 9/11: A Television News Archive," which catalogs 3,000 hours of domestic and international TV news footage from 20 channels from the week around September 11, 2001. Television news coverage of the September 11 attacks and their aftermath not only documented one of the most important events in mass memory but also influenced public perception. We feature excerpts of coverage from the global archive and speak with its organizers, Brewster Kahle and Rick Prelinger. Kahle is an internet entrepreneur, activist, digital librarian and founder of the Internet Archive and the Open Content Alliance, a group of organizations committed to making a permanent, publicly accessible archive of digitized texts. Prelinger is an archivist, writer, filmmaker and founder of the Prelinger Archives, a collection of 60,000 advertising, educational, industrial and amateur films acquired by the Library of Congress in 2002 after 20 years’ operation. "[9/11] was a major event that was really a television event. People really understood this through television," says Kahle. He adds that seeing "how people are starting to come to grips with it really shaped how we saw the whole event." [includes rush transcript]


democracy now link


Here is the actual website for the archive. They were collecting original video almost immediately after the attack.


The 9/11 Television News Archive is a library of news coverage of the events of 9/11/2001 and their aftermath as presented by U.S. and international broadcasters. A resource for scholars, journalists, and the public, it presents one week of news broadcasts for study, research and analysis. Television is our pre-eminent medium of information, entertainment and persuasion, but until now it has not been a medium of record. This Archive attempts to address this gap by making TV news coverage of this critical week in September 2001 available to those studying these events and their treatment in the media.


911 original video archive
edit on 1-3-2012 by jim3981 because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-3-2012 by jim3981 because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-3-2012 by jim3981 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by jim3981
reply to post by magicrat
 


There is a good interview on democracy now of two guys who set up an internet archive with more than 3000 hrs of original 911 news video footage.

If you watch the democracy now clip. There is one great piece of video from the archive that shows a news reporter standing in front of a still standing building 7 saying the building had already collapsed.


This is obsolete information. The BBC already responded years ago that it was entirely because they were trying to grab information to broadcast in the middle of a lot of mayhem and confusion and it was a simple error in reporting.

BBC's response to conspiracy accusations

All during 9/11 I myself was hearing all sorts of untrue reports like "firefighters survived by riding down on the collapse" and "30,000 people had been killed" so trying to make the BBC misidentifying the building that had collapsed into anything more than that is simply making a mountain out of a molehill.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


That's hilarious Dave. The BBC doesn't have the original tapes of 911. They don't deny the reporter being in front of the falling building either while on TV.

The Archive guys claim their tapes are real, and stand by that.

I haven't seen any evidence that the archive tapes are not real.

The BBC article bolsters their position:



3)Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

4)If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Be interested in seeing some video or pictures of aluminum on fire at 7000 degrees Dave.

I've used aluminum and various types of SST in or around quartz semiconductor furnace chambers that operate up to 1100 degrees C.

Anyone designing with high temperatures in mind knows that moving away from the heat source by just a few inches can change the temperature measured drastically.

I designed a number of solutions for Kalrez O-ring melting challenges. The furnace could be running at 1100 degrees C(2012 degrees F), and 12" away one could have an O-ring only rated for 400 degrees C that would not burn. Moving 12" inches can drop the temp hundreds of degrees C.

That is with the O-ring mated directly too a glowing orange quartz chamber. Had to use some nitrogen to keep the glowing orange O-ring surface cool, but that O-ring was only rated for 400 degrees C. Alls kinds of special ceramic insulation surrounded the chamber also.

I also worked with some guys doing thermal modeling at times when the parts got more expensive($100k a piece) and all it took was moving just a couple inches to keep an O-ring from overheating.

It takes direct and sustained heat to bring metal like that up to temperature. Aluminum dissipates the heat pretty well and doesn't hold the heat like steel.
edit on 1-3-2012 by jim3981 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jim3981
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


That's hilarious Dave. The BBC doesn't have the original tapes of 911. They don't deny the reporter being in front of the falling building either while on TV.

The Archive guys claim their tapes are real, and stand by that.

I haven't seen any evidence that the archive tapes are not real.

The BBC article bolsters their position:



3)Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

4)If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.




I don't see why this would be "hilarious" since none of that shows how the BBC was incorrect in their response. They said they were grabbing for stories to run with and they threw out something onto the air without knowing it was incorrect at the time, and nothing you've said addresses why it would be impossible for this to happen. It's obvious the reporter didn't know the WTC 7 building was standing in back of her for the simple fact that YOU TRUTHERS didn't know the WTC 7 building was standing in back of her either. That's why the con artists spinning this hoax put an arrow overlay identifying which building was WTC 7 out of the cityscape in the background, otherwise you would have missed it yourselves. Here's the (I believe) original video that started this whole scam so you can see this for yourself-




I'm sorry, but regardless of whether you agree with it or not, all this nonstop "well now, isn't THAT interesting (wink wink)" innuendo dropping those damned fool conspiracy web sites are shoveling out only supports my statement that the 9/11 truth movement is chock full of scammers.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jim3981
Be interested in seeing some video or pictures of aluminum on fire at 7000 degrees Dave.


No, actually, instead I'd like to see an explanation on how your hypothetical thermite could have been responsible for the almost 500 square feet of underground fires that burned for THREE MONTHS. That's the whole scenario pushing this conspiracy theory of yours to begin with, isn't it?

The fact remains that underground fires were approaching blast furnace temperatures and it was already proven there was no thermite. Those two facts by themselves explans the condition of the supposed molten steel and dismisses these accusations of sabotage. The particular technical reason for why the fires were burning is therefore largely moot.
edit on 2-3-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join