9/11 Conspiracy Theories!

What I am seeing is well below the level of alleged pancaking. At least one of these flashes occurs at the very edge of the building. There is nothing being expelled from the window, it a flash of light, there are no fires that low in the building. Firefighters had just gone up that way.

Does anyone else

A)See the flashes of light along the building as it collapses.

B)Agree with GIGObuster’s theory

or

C)Have another idea of what this is.
I postulate that these flashes of light are demolition charges of some kind. Would anyone agree that this may be a possibility?

You keep using that word, I don’t think you know what the meaning of alleged is.

The evidence points to other items as the reason for the fall of the building, your points are the ones that are alleged, the flashes can still be the pressure of the falling building ejecting material, funny that firefighters that “missed” any other possible fires are also missing charges being detonated in your world.

“missed” is in quotes, because some fires at the bottom were not missed:

Not all the people at the bottom of the building died, if those flashes are explosives more than just out of context quotes and witnesses would have reported the detonations, the documentary 9/11 shows firefighters at the bottom of the building, the documentary makers recorded it all live (inside the building BTW) and the only thing one sees at the bottom is darkness when the last floors fall down, the few firefighters who were in the group being filmed died by falling debris, not explosions, those flashes were not “explosions” from the inside, but only close to the outside, evidence that this was NOT a controlled demolition.

A control detonation also requires an alleged group of people that needed to plant explosives that required them to drill into metal and concrete. That takes weeks to set up. Allegedly no one noticed all that drilling.

Really, the moment you go for C, you have to show good evidence Sent; not allegations. Your theory remains unlikely due to lack of evidence.

Airplanes used in a terrorist attack. Unprecedented, unexpected. The shut-down of US airspace. Would that have happened with only bombs? No. The post-9/11 security over airports. Would that have happened with only bombs? Maybe.

There needed to be planes flying into the towers AND the towers to collapse. This was the only post that came to that conclusion.

Huh? I don’t see any conclusion there.

So instead of an Afghan pipeline, the ultimate goal was actually to inconvenience American air travellers?

Even (for the sake of argument) granting this single piece, you still have a huge gap to fill:
How does one guarantee that crashing a plane into a tower will not disrupt the bombs set to bring down the building? If the planes had not been “enough,” the concussion and fires could easily have disrupted the bombs’ arming mechanisms (none of which were found in the rubble) leaving the buildings standing precariously to have the bombs discovered later.

But, then, I do not grant this point, anyway: Why did the towers have to fall? (Just the hijacking and crashes would have been enough to ground civil aviation.)

You missed the point of my post, at least. My point wasn’t “if bombs, why airplanes?” it was “if airplanes, why bombs?” If, as Bryan Eckers asks, you think the point of the attack was to inconvenience air travelers (???), why would you need bombs at all?

See why your data is completely subjective? You are provided with a reasonable explaination (that is also grounded not only in common sense but with science to back it up) and you still dispute it. You are looking at an OPTICAL effect, that has been enhanced from a shaky video…and this is what you are using as your sole evidence of ‘explosions’. You don’t even want to try and see that there is a logical explaination that doesn’t involve ‘explosives’.

Here is an experiment for you to try in your copious free time. Get two plates. on the bottom plate put some kind of fine powder (very find sand, powdered sugar, etc.). Smack the top plate onto the bottom plate. What happens?

I see something that could be flashes…or could be what it probably is, indications of floors giving way and material being ejected out (sort of like the plate experiment I directed you to try). Its unclear just from the video exactly what we are seeing…which is why your ‘data’ is totally bullshit. Its SUBJECTIVE…do you get it?

I agree that his theory is logically sound and reasonable yes. His also has the benifit of being simple and not needing a lot of physical evidence (so far not provided by you) to back it up. Again, if what we are seeing ARE explosions where is the physical evidence? Where are the remains of the detonators, the det-cord, the indications of the explosions on the load bearing members. What exactly was the explosive medium used…if its thermite then how do YOU account for the fact that thermite doesn’t explode but burns (i.e. how does your pathetic ‘evidence’ work if there ARE no explosions because the columns were supposedly burned through by your proposed thermite chages??)?

Hell, where is the theory I’ve asked you about at least 4 times? How may floors were effected? How many supports per floor? How much explosive used per support? Not only do you have nothing as far as real physical evidence you don’t even have a working THEORY (seemingly) on this…just a lot of jumbled ‘facts’, out the ass speculation and bullshit.

Certainly its possible. Its possible that aliens took down the towers using gravity weapons and made it all look like it was humans that did it. But…where is the physical EVIDENCE to back up what you are postulating? Do you understand that you can postulate all you want…but without any hard evidence its just a lot of hot air?

And while you are postulating, why don’t you dig up some postulations answering my questions (how many floors, how many supports per floor, how much explosive per support, what type of explosive)?

-XT

**Do you have any objective evidence that the Worls Trade Center was destroyed in this manner?

Yes or no?**

Instead of copy and pasting it all the time, why don’t you just quote yourself :smiley:
Just fooling RickJay. I just think it’s funny how often your post(s) have not been dealt with.

Doing some renovation in my basement today, I had to knock down an old wall. In the process, I hit some old nails with a hammer and got a nice lovely spark, without any added accelerant, electricity or explosive. Considering the amount of force of a collapsing building is quite a bit greater than me with my little ol’ hammer, couldn’t momentary flashes be due simply to metal hitting metal on a larger scale?

So nothing erupts from the window and no damage to the building is visible following the flash, so what kind of “explosions” do you think it might have been that failed to do any damage (or much of anything aside from appearing outside the wall)?

Here is a suggestion: falling glass or sheets of wallboard or even paper falling from stories above, twisting as they fell so that at one point they happened to reflect light from the flames of the other building or catch a reflection off the windows of some other building. (Since the angle of incidence between the light source and the camera would have required a particular angle (out of the 129,600 angles available to an object twisting in space) the reflection was only visible for a brief moment as it fell. Given the numerous objects of various material falling from the building continuously throughout the event, several of them could easily have reflected some particular light source to the camera from different angles, then appeared to disappear as they no longer reflected the light.

I have now provided an explanation that accounts for the appearance of the flashes while simultaneaously explaining why no windows erupted at the point of the flash and no damage is visible on the walls behind the flashes. My solution is actually more logical than yours and better supported by the evidence.

Certainly. Or it could be due to the way light was hitting the ejected debris coming out. Or it could be due to the fires (which didn’t go out just because the building was dropping) and smoke ejected when two floors pancaked together. Or it could be an artifact of the enhancement process used by whoever modified the orignial video in order to ‘prove’ whatever they were trying to prove. Hell, it COULD be intentional modification to enhance (and make more prominent) something that was fuzzy on the original video…something exactly like your hammer hitting old nails or any of the other explainations, but something that just wasn’t spectacular enough to ‘prove’ the CT.

Or it could be indications of the aliens gravity beams intersecting…NEVER cross the beams! :stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

Should have just waited for tomndebb to post…his explaination was better. :slight_smile:

-XT

Wouldn’t that cause all life as we know it to stop instantaneously and every molecule in our bodies explode at the speed of light?

Can you prove to me (OBJECTIVE proof mind you! :wink: ) that this hasn’t already happened? Maybe we are living in some kind of after life since 9/11. Has anyone checked to see if the dolphins are still about or if they have all boarded spaceships to another planet…thanking us kindly for all the fish first of course.

-XT

Do you have any objective proof that dolphins…

Sorry, sorry, jumped a bit too quick there.

Warning: Contains horrific experiences from 9/11…but notice the bolded text. Conspiracy “theorists” have not made this up. However, only alternative media and conspiracy theorists are willing to do interviews with these credible witnesses…it’s the same old story.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/200705twistedwords.htm

He experiences at least 3 explosions after he arrives and the lobby elevator doors are already blown out. One of those is the collapse of the other tower. What are the other two? And why would he be so offended by the 9/11 Commission, if all they were doing was just taking his testimony. Seems to me they were trying to pressure him to make his experience fit their official narrative, like they did with others.

Here’s a link: Top 15 Reasons Why the 9/11 Conspiracy is Absurd.

Think Philip José Farmer rather than Douglas Adams.