Why Place 9/11 With Other Conspiracy Theories?

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Alfie1? Do you guys all live together? Must be tough to shower in the morning.

Anyway, a poster posts something ABOUT who he believes and WHY, and YOU post an article about an epoxy coating analysis on the STEEL I-BEAMS from a scientist/researcher NOT mentioned by the poster!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nano--thermate is DISINFORMAtion PROPagated by YOU.

Do you wish to comment on the microstructural evidence of thermate on HSLA steel as evidenced by Appdx C?

Or another straw man perhaps? Guess repetition is the oldest form of mind control. NEVA worked on me.


I was responding to a poster who believes that thermite/ thermate, nano-thermite/.thermate whatever was used at the WTC based on the words of Niels Harrit and Mark Basile.

It is not a straw man argument to point out that that is far from universally accepted and to illustrate that by providing a link to more recent work by Dr James Millette, member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and self-evidently highly qualified.

And that is without touching on the absurdity of supposing you can rig huge skyscrapers with, ( how many tons of nano/super/thermite/ate etc ) while security, sniffer dogs, and the thousands who work there don't notice a thing.




posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 





And that is without touching on the absurdity of supposing you can rig huge skyscrapers with, ( how many tons of nano/super/thermite/ate etc ) while security, sniffer dogs, and the thousands who work there don't notice a thing.


So you do not seek the truth as it may be absurd?

Your statement is quite a conspiracy theory. Care to elaborate? Do you wish to discuss the metallurgical evidence of thermate in Appdx C? Or do you wish to continue your diversion of the topic?

www.fema.gov...
edit on 2-4-2013 by ibiubu because: (no reason given)


The conclusion is wrong since sulfur does not diffuse in steel below it's liquidus temperature. But, who would know right? The beams were cut with thermate lit with fused explosives.
edit on 2-4-2013 by ibiubu because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-4-2013 by ibiubu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by Alfie1
 





And that is without touching on the absurdity of supposing you can rig huge skyscrapers with, ( how many tons of nano/super/thermite/ate etc ) while security, sniffer dogs, and the thousands who work there don't notice a thing.


So you do not seek the truth as it may be absurd?

Your statement is quite a conspiracy theory. Care to elaborate? Do you wish to discuss the metallurgical evidence of thermate in Appdx C? Or do you wish to continue your diversion of the topic?


And your idea of seeking the truth is to ignore Dr Millette's findings and to avoid legitimate questions as to how the rigging was done without a soul noticing ?



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I have read Dr. Millete's findings in addition to others.

I have created metal alloys for various companies for the last 20 years. I also have created thermite and thermate reactions under explosive conditions for safety videos. This reaction can blow up a primary aluminum casting facility.

How did iron sulfide get into the microstructure of the A36 steel? It was not there in the base microstructure - not a result of making it.

Or will YOU CONTINUE TO AVOID and DIVERT?



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ibiubu
 




Or will YOU CONTINUE TO AVOID and DIVERT?

But you did not answer his question of how was the building rigged without anyone noticing?



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
all true conspiracies spew forth from the beast in the east.
print - or get out - spew or get out - so simple.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by RomeByFire
Explain to me why there was molten steel,


There wasnt, jut another 9/11 silly story.


had to bring up "holographic planes"

m.youtube.com...

Firefighters reported molten steel, not just a silly story
They was there that day you wasn't!
Just because you say there wasn't doesn't make doesn't make that a fact

If you don't agree with people questioning the OS then simply don't come onto conspiracy websites

Calling people silly truthers just makes you look like a toddler.

I disagree with every post you have made as all you offer is your opinion which means zero! But I don't feel the need to name call
edit on 2-4-2013 by kaya82 because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-4-2013 by kaya82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I have read Dr. Millete's findings in addition to others.

I have created metal alloys for various companies for the last 20 years. I also have created thermite and thermate reactions under explosive conditions for safety videos. This reaction can blow up a primary aluminum casting facility.

How did iron sulfide get into the microstructure of the A36 steel? It was not there in the base microstructure - not a result of making it.

Or will YOU CONTINUE TO AVOID and DIVERT?


Where exactly have I avoided or diverted ? I have pointed out to you that Dr Millette found no trace of thermite/ate in WTC samples. You say you have read his report but do not comment on it. What qualifications do you have to rebut it ?

You think there was thermate lit by fused explosives ? So how was this rigged without anyone, including sniffer dogs, noticing ? What evidence was there in WTC debris of det cord, detonators etc ? What evidence is there of explosive detonations ?

Why fly a jetliner into a building already pre-rigged for demolition ? The questions are obvious and insistent and truthers have no answers that make any sense.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by kaya82
 


How would people on the WTC site know molten steel from molten aluminium, lead or whatever ?

If there was molten steel on the site how does that prove an "inside job" ?



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by kaya82
 


How would people on the WTC site know molten steel from molten aluminium, lead or whatever ?

If there was molten steel on the site how does that prove an "inside job" ?



What's ironic is that the "molten steel" bit is also being used by the tactical nukes crowd as proof of THEIR case. It's a given they both can't be right.

I ask why this supposed analysis of the evidence really isn't just a Rorschach test where people simply see whatever they themselves want to see (person A look at molten steel and sees thermite while person B look at the exact same molten steel and sees nukes, depending on which one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites they stumbled across first) and I have yet to receive a response that didn't involve sinister secret agents.

So at the end of the day, why would this NOT be considered a conspiracy theory, particularly when it IS a theory and it IS about a conspiracy?



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Grand Central Station in peak hour was nothing compared to the WTC buildings in the weeks before the collapse. You had the teams of invisible agents painting nano thermite everywhere, teams of demolition experts planting explosives everywhere, then you had the guys installing the mini nukes.... and they all got past the bomb sniffer dog, and no worker in the building noticed anything? Some people have obviously never worked in a high rise building, as when a stranger is working on your floor you know about it, and you think someone would have noticed the tonnes of explosives used in the demolition, or the people painting the thermite on....



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Obviously the OS bots and their ilk want to brand people as crazy with a 'conspiracy theorist' tag, which they think works, but we see through that tactic.

People generally don't just make up conspiracy theories for fun, a lot of research and studies have been done, way more in-depth than NIST ever did, and way more information has come to light since NIST did their fraudulent reports.

If the reports were re-done, by non-corrupt people, with all bases investigated, the 'official story' would be a lot closer to what 'conspiracy theorists' suggest.

So, to try and stop us do-gooder truth finders, they will try and ridicule and stigmatise anyone trying to find the real truth.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
People generally don't just make up conspiracy theories for fun,


Yes they do actually, otherwise why do they make up so many silly stories about what they claim happened, all the time ignoring science and facts?


a lot of research and studies have been done,


Actually research is something conspiracy theorists do not do, as real research destroys their silly conspiracy theories. Remember, real research is not cutting and pasting nonsense you find on the internet.


and way more information has come to light since NIST did their reports.


No it has not actually.


the 'official story' would be a lot closer to what 'conspiracy theorists' suggest.


So your "official story" must contain mini nukes, painted on thermite, silent explosives, beam weapons from space, holographic aircraft, aircraft carrying pods firing missiles etc etc. As all those silly claims are some of the silly stories conspiracy theorists have come up with for 9/11. Or only the silly conspiracy theories that you agree with are allowed?


anyone trying to find the real truth.


But as has been repeatedly shown, conspiracy theorists are not interested in the truth!



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   


all these things are part of the 9/11 "truth" movement
reply to post by hellobruce
 


They are part of the debunker repertoire; "I suppose you believe this/that", "what about those holographic space lasers you say blew up the pentagon?"

You never see "truthers" genuinely espouse such nonsense.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   


People who think there were nukes in the basement are getting into fistfights with the people who think there were lasers from outer space who are in turn getting into yelling matches with the people who think the towers were all fake buildings


A great example here of said repertoire made use of by GoodOlDave...



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   


Well, this thread is about 9/11 conspiracy theories, and holographic planes along with all the other silly stories of mini nukes, thermite, beam weapons from space etc. are all part of the 9/11 conspiracy theory stories....
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Is this you being deliberately obtuse?

abovetopsecret.com.samuru.com...

The majority of results for this site as you can see are simply "debunkers" rattling off this phrase in a mocking list of allegedly genuine "truther theories".



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   


Well, this thread is about 9/11 conspiracy theories, and holographic planes along with all the other silly stories of mini nukes, thermite, beam weapons from space etc. are all part of the 9/11 conspiracy theory stories....
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Is this you being deliberately obtuse?

abovetopsecret.com.samuru.com...

The majority of results for this site as you can see are simply "debunkers" rattling off this phrase in a mocking list of allegedly genuine "truther theories".



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Morg234



all these things are part of the 9/11 "truth" movement
reply to post by hellobruce
 


They are part of the debunker repertoire; "I suppose you believe this/that", "what about those holographic space lasers you say blew up the pentagon?"

You never see "truthers" genuinely espouse such nonsense.


Are you seriously claiming that there are no posts on here from truthers who believe in energy beam weapons, mini-nukes, holographic planes, planes with pods, wtc buildings being hollow shells, fake victims ?



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Morg234
They are part of the debunker repertoire;


Wrong again, they are all claims made by truthers posted here and at truther conspiracy sites/


You never see "truthers" genuinely espouse such nonsense.


So you think the use of explosives, thermite etc. is nonsense.... so what particular truther conspiracy theory do you believe in?
Oh, that the planes that hit the WTC were drones.... or a plane flew over the Pentagon and it was hit by a missile (then you ignore all the bodies, and aircraft parts inside the Pentagon) you also believe in the pod carrying aircraft.... that the planes were switched.

A lot of truthers think your conspiracy theory about 9/11 are the work of a disinfo agents....



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I want everyone to think about this:

Is it so far-fetched to have the option where people in power "let it happen" just so they can push their own agendas?

Ron Paul's position is that the higher ups could have prevented it but they either "ignored" warnings or let it happen.


Would that be a conspiracy?

Or is that simply a way for governments, which is made up of powerful and potentially greedy people, to gain more power and money?

Bush Ignored 9/11 Warnings
edit on 4/7/2013 by die_another_day because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join