1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Fact. Explosives found in 911 dust.

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Conspirator, May 27, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Theige

    Theige American Baron

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2002
    Messages:
    3,935
    Location:
    New York
    None of the buildings fell straight down, "right into its footprint."
     
  2. Conspirator

    Conspirator Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Messages:
    388
    NIST say that the office fires reached a maximum temperature of 1000 oC on their website. The fires wouldn't have collapsed without the plane getting rid of the insulation, according to official theory. Other high rise buildings have had office fires over many more stories and for over 10 hours without any structural damage.

    Well I don't know about that, think about it. This sledge hammer (the upper floors) snapped off from the weakened columns and smashed into the lower level. If it hit the lower level with a bang (like you say, a hammer) which caused the rest of the building to collapse with each successive BANG, BANG, BANG, then it would have jolted upwards or at least stopped accelerating. Something falling does accelerate, but if it hits something it will of course be slowed. If you watch the video of the mast, you'll see it accelerates as it does down. I'll try and find the video it's very convincing.
     
  3. Conspirator

    Conspirator Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Messages:
    388
    Do you? As in the force of an object hitting another object? As opposed to the force of an object falling without resistance? Read the post above. Or did you mean the Force as in implying I have been mind-tricked?
     
  4. Conspirator

    Conspirator Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Messages:
    388
    They are pretty clean though aren't they? Look remarkably similar to controlled demolition, don't they? I don't think anyone can deny that.
     
  5. Terrapin

    Terrapin Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2003
    Messages:
    505
    Even if you allow that everything in this paper is a fact, it proves nothing. Two airliners and several large buildings were destroyed. These materials, if they were explosives, could have been anywhere. Finding a few chips of thermite does not show that thermite was used to destroy the WTC. It proves, at most, that there was some thermite present in the area. You see, Conspirator, knocking down huge buildings with explosives requires quite a lot of explosives and those explosives have distinct thermal fingerprints. If the WTC had been blown up with explosives, it would be very, very easy to prove, since approximately every camera in the world was pointed at those buildings.
     
  6. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Englander

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    24,103
    Location:
    High above the ice
    Conspirator, can you paint me what you think really happened on 9/11? Please keep in mind the practical difficulties which come with rigging a building which is buzzing with activity without anyone seeing the rigging go up. How this rigging survived the impact on 2 occasions (it's clear the building started to collapse at the point of impact, so that where the 'explosives' (is termite an explosive?) had to go off to start the collapse. You seem to imply the floors under the point of impact where also rigged, which would increase the difficulties rigging an office building while it's being used.

    There are many more practical speedbumps to go over when you try to reconstruct the towers collapsing because of explosives, but an answer to these for now will be greatly appreciated.
    I can. A controlled demolition is designed not to damage the surrounding buildings. Did you ever see an aerial shot of the damage?




    This is far from clean
     
  7. Conspirator

    Conspirator Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Messages:
    388
    I don't claim to know that, all I'm saying is that there is evidence of explosives found from four samples from different locations in Manhattan from WTC dust. Watch interview and tell me you don't think this deserves a bit of open mindedness? This is evidence of one theory being correct and another being false. Like when someone found evidence we weren't at the centre of the universe, sort of thing. Deserves to be treated properly, like an open scientific paper.

    Someone earlier mentioned gravity and that gravity is also a theory. Yes, thanks for that. *thumbs up* but the thing is gravity is a theory with evidence to back it up. The official theory has no evidence BUT NOW THE CONSPIRACY THEORY DOES. So basically what this paper does it make it more scientifically credible. And rather than just being off hand with stuff, maybe you guys should act 'intellectual' and 'open minded' like the threads you guys make 'oh, rather, are we intellectuals on here??' and actually be open minded and intellectual about this?
     
  8. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Englander

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    24,103
    Location:
    High above the ice
    Question remains, can you paint me the picture of what you think really happened on 9/11?
     
  9. Joecoolyo

    Joecoolyo 99% Lightspeed

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,908
    Location:
    茨城県
    lolwutpear.jpg

    Moderator Action: I understand your frustration, but next time, please just report posts or reply with at least some discussion point. :)
     
  10. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Englander

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    24,103
    Location:
    High above the ice
    Dude, if you're going to say things like this, people will think you're a nutter.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center

     
  11. Conspirator

    Conspirator Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Messages:
    388
    Don't claim to know and don't want to speculate. All I was doing here was making people aware that a scientist has provided evidence that the official theory is not credible. Who knows what such large quantities of thermite was doing in WTC dust?

    Maybe it has nothing to do with the collapse, but there are too many suspicions concerning 911.
     
  12. aimeeandbeatles

    aimeeandbeatles uolǝɯɹǝʇɐʍ

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    15,768
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    ɐpɐuɐƆ 'ɐᴉʇoɔS ɐʌoN
    Wikipedia says this about thermite:
    "Copper thermite is used for welding together thick copper wires for the purpose of electrical connections. It is used extensively by the electrical utilities and telecommunications industries (exothermic welded connections)."
     
  13. Conspirator

    Conspirator Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Messages:
    388
    Ziggy the pan-cake theory is no longer credible NIST has found it not to be true. That popular mechanics thing is no longer credible.

    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
     
  14. IglooDude

    IglooDude Enforcing Rule 34 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    21,384
    Location:
    Igloo, New Hampshire
    No, the evidence your scientist provides does not address the official theory at all, it only supports a different theory. You are separately arguing against the official theory by stating that you think only a planned/controlled demolition "could look like that", and folks here are offering rebuttal.
     
  15. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Englander

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    24,103
    Location:
    High above the ice
    Would you call this evidence to support the official theory?

     
  16. Conspirator

    Conspirator Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Messages:
    388
  17. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Englander

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    24,103
    Location:
    High above the ice
    Don't dodge me. You said there was no evidence to support the official theory.

    Would you call what you posted evidence to support the official theory?
     
  18. Maimonides

    Maimonides Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,078
    Location:
    Kansas, USA
    Millions of us watched the 2nd plane hit live. Some of my friends were nearby when the 1st plane hit. There were four planes hijacked that day. The people who funded & planned the attacks claimed responsibility. The towers were massive structures in use for decades. It's not surprising that all kinds of crap was found in the debris.

    The OP is insinuating that the towers were blown up with pre-placed explosives despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The OP is not even having the integrity to explain what he thinks "really" happened. We all know what this is, but we can't say it & we don't know why the mods are allowing it. It's on the level of holocaust denial & claiming the moon landings were faked.

    I find this conspiracy BS to be incredibly disrespectful of those who lost their lives & those who lost their parents, children, siblings & friends. This is not a game. We're not searching for proof that Col. Mustard did it with a candlestick. It's about real human suffering.
     
  19. Moss

    Moss CFC Scribe Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    May 1, 2002
    Messages:
    6,584
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Moderator Action: Thread closed. CFC is not the place to disseminate your conspiracy theories.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page