9/11 Conspiracy Theories!

Great Debates
462

Sorry lemur866, I meant to code this quite tastefully but I’m running out of time so here goes:

The presence of molten steel is supposed to indicate…what? That there were fires hotter than possible by jet fuel and burning office equipment.

  1. It is a byproduct of Thermite.

Which indicates…what? Thermite? Huh? Even if you’re using thermite to cut through structural steel, how much molten steel are you expecting? It shouldn’t be that much. The hypothetical thermite charges are just burning through selected steel beams or cables, not melting vast quantities of steel.

  1. If you know how much molten metal was there, please let me know as it would probably help my case. How much molten metal was supposed to be there, would you say?

You’d expect the charges to go off, and the building to come down. No charges go off before the demolition, and the building cannot stay up after the charges are blown. The known situtation in the towers…random fires, explosions going off, 612 pound 50 ton presses thrown around, the collapse starting at the site of the plane crash, all argue against a demolition.

  1. I’m not even saying that the “other” explosions were connected to the demolition so I’m not too worried about them. The squibs, speed of fall and molten metal constitute the bulk of my proverbial “fucking beef”.
    (I am also pissed off about the 50 ton = 612 pound calculation FWIW)

Look, I’m going to be plain here. Everyone keeps saying “My God, the collapse was just like a controlled demolition! What’s up with that?” But it WASN’T. The reason the demolition analogy comes to all these people’s minds is that controlled demolitions are the ONLY LARGE BUILDING COLLAPSES THEY"VE EVER SEEN.

  1. Because no other structures of the type had ever collapsed that way before. The demolition analogy comes to my mind because of the squibs, fall time and molten metal. I had no fantasies about the towers coming down due to anything other than the jets until I started reading up on this to debunk a conspiracy theorists.

How else is a skyscraper going to collapse, except by demolition or some extreme event that stresses the building waaaaay beyond it’s design, like a big earthquake, or somebody driving a fully fueled jumbo jet into it.

  1. Despite the fact that the twin towers were built to withstand exactly that?

And there are significant differences with the WTC collapse and a demolition. The collapse didn’t start with the ground floor. There were fires and explosions and such going on for an hour before the collapse. That never happens in a controlled demolition, in fact controlled demolitions have no fires, and all the explosions are either simultaneous or happen in very rapid succession, within a few seconds.

  1. I’m not going to argue with that.

The WTC collapse is totally inconsistent with a controlled demolition. Never mind the lack of evidence, no det cord, no detonators, no recovered explosives, no strange people discovered wandering around the WTC on Sept 10 with toolboxes full of explosives. The simple events of the collapse argue against a demolition. It DOESN’T look like a demolition, excpet for the fact that the building collapsed, like buildings undergoing demolition also collapse. The only similarity is that both collapse.

  1. I respectfully disagree.
463

BTW, skeptical Dopers, you might wanna look at 911 Myths. As mentioned earlier in this thread, it has a good page debunking most of UG’s points.

464

I doubt it. As previously indicated (not that I’m demanding that everyone remembers every detail of my posts), I am not too fond of the majority of CT’s. They’re not as smart as I am.

Removing my smartypants for a moment, what level of detail has effectively excluded me from the conversation? You seem to think that I have dedicated my life to working on this and am springing some complicated details on you to …obfuscate? That is really not the case–I got to know the matter while unsuccessfully trying to debunk it quite a while ago and I follow the local discussion at home and thought there might be a debate here, too.

Hey, did you just accuse me of deliberately misleading people? Seriously, I can’t tell, English was my fourth language.

465

Oh, come on… at least tell us which points and how. I can also just link to a webpage that “debunks” all the points you people have made but how is that a debate?

466

It means that I submitted your words that some kind of vaccuum in a controlled demolition would somehow cause it to collapse faster, to the web site Conspiracy Theorists Say the Darndest Things.

The people who used these words were not experts, but let’s go with the assumption that metal was molten and flowing in pools. We also have a couple of observations that it was red-hot. Conspiracy advocates claim that steel gets molten only at very high temperatures, and that there was molten steel, and given that office furniture fires don’t get hot enough to melt steel, this proves something else had happened. That’s the chain of logic as I understand it. The problem is that being red-hot tells you the temperature, and this temperature is in the plausible range for an office fire. Since steel is white-hot when molten, and we have no reports of anything white-hot, we have no reason to believe there was molten steel. There could be red-hot steel, or molten metal of some other kind, but there did not seem to be any molten steel, so that aspect of the conspiracy argument is pretty much destroyed.

When a building is rigged for implosion, the process normally takes weeks, and that’s for much smaller buildings. There is a great deal of work to be done, including removing walls, drilling, and running literally miles of detonation cord. You think this was done by a handful of guys working in secret over a weekend?!?

467

sigh

How and when did I say that? You said there wasn’t any evidence and I said that the fall speed of WTC7 was evidence of CD.

ev·i·dence

  1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
  2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner’s face.

What is your evidence for the “fire theory” for that matter?

468

So now, not only are the we deluded fools not smart enough, but the other true believers themselves aren’t up to snuff.

This is comedy gold.

Everything else is not worth the electrons wasted pulling it up on my screen (I can hear them complaining every time I open this thread - I’m weak, what can I say). There is no debate here. What is happening is that anyone who may be sitting on the fence is being treated to insane speculations being debunked by solid science. I’d say guess what side you are on, UG, but you’d be wrong. Just like has been empirically proven to you, but conjured away by your fervid imagination.

Others have done the heavy lifting; I’ve got nothing to add to them. I’m just here to point and laugh - what I do have to say is better said in the Pit thread spawned by this piece of fantasy.

469

What is a squib, and why do you think they were involved in the fall?

The speed of fall has been addressed. A controlled demolition building falls very quickly becuase it’s very heavy and there is hardly any force to oppose that weight. The idea that an explosion would cause a vaccuum and suck it down faster is just nuts. This same argument applies to a building collapsing by fire.

We’ve destroyed the molten metal CT argument.

Calculation? It was just a link to a site that sells 50-ton presses. The one shown was specified to weigh 612 pounds. Anyone who implies that a 50-ton press would weigh 100,000 pounds is either ignorant of what a press is, or deliberately lying.

470

I have to disagree, as well. From one of the points made earlier, the building retained most of its structural integrity after the plane impact, according to the building’s oscillations (longer periods would mean less stability, but this was not the case). Also, I believe the building would have collapsed as the south tower was beginning to do, which is to lean over to one side. It stopped leaning and began its total collapse when the rest of the building underneath it disappeared.

471

So as to not attract the vehement protests of others, ignore the last “building” I wrote and replace it with “support”. :wink:

472

Hey UG. Clarification. Misleading comes in two flavors, deliberate falsehood and sincere error. It’s the latter of which I’m accusing you and the other 9/11 CTs. As for your being excluded from the debate, (a) I don’t have that power and (b) that’s not what I said. Rather, I said that only people deeply steeped in the issue would be able to follow you, and that only those who had already bought the theory would agree. IMHO, that makes it not worth my time to prove why you’re wrong. For example, I notice that you replied to the “15 Top Reasons.” I’m confident that any lurkers reading the reply would find it unpersuasive without my having to hold their hands. As for the 911 Myths debunking, I leave it to others to connect the dots.

473

Asked too many probing questions, ehe? IOW you got nothing.

At least your user name is apt.

-XT

p.s. if you think I violated the rules of this forum contact a mod…don’t do a lame ass bitch about it, trying to deflect the fact that you simply don’t want to answer the questions because you HAVE no answers…save the same old bullshit. We’ve had 10 PAGES of the same crap…and you have nothing more to contribute.

474

And the bomb-sniffing dogs that were still in the building didn’t detect anything.

475

Anything from one to four months…

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/14122036.htm

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=6&reqItemId=20020304145120

Also remember that the “shut down” only accounted for half of one tower. And was the ONLY evidence we have that it occurred AT ALL was a single uncorrobarated source, Scott Forbes . It was not even mentioned by any of the other companies in the building, and thousands of their employees, that would have had their vital operations shutdown for two days. This not even considering the security implications for the various banks in the WTC that would, according to Scott Forbes have had to withdraw ALL their security staff for two days.

476

Oh well. Vaccuum sealed explosives won’t be detectable. I heard drug smugglers are using their own drug sniffing dogs to sniff their trucks before they send them across the border. If their dogs can smell them, they start over. Likewise, bomb sniffing dogs could have been used to test how thoroughly the bombs were sealed.

477

Hey, look at this! Evidence that conspiracists have manipulated 9/11 video footage!

478

He won’t have to, since a Mod has been in and out of this thread quite a bit.

Back off.

There is already a Pit thread open on the same topic. If you feel an utter need to get personal or insulting, post it there. There is simply no point in being rude in this thread.

[ /Moderating ]

479

So now they were using pipe bombs?

480

No, I meant the part of the bomb that would normally be sniffable, wouldn’t be because it was so throughly sealed and checked by the assailants very own bomb sniffing dogs. The WTC’s dogs might have been removed so that they wouldn’t detect the traces that would be in the air after they were detonated.

481

No, I meant the part of the bomb that would normally be sniffable, wouldn’t be because it was so throughly sealed and checked by the assailants very own bomb sniffing dogs. The WTC’s dogs might have been removed so that they wouldn’t detect the traces that would be in the air after they were detonated.