9/11 Conspiracy Thread

#1,927
#1,927
bamawriter said:
So you would like an official investigation into the official investigation?
Click to expand...
No.

A new investigation that considers all new evidence that wasn't included in or addressed by the NIST report.

A petition has already been filed and the new evidence will be presented to a federal grand jury in the SDNY.
 
#1,928
#1,928
ajvol01 said:
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth | WTC Twin Towers and Building 7

As I understand it, the iron micro spheres form as a result of burning nano-thermite.
Click to expand...
so same problems as before.

assuming it was actually nano-thermite used to bring down the building:
1. says so in the link that this dust was ignited at temps around 450 degrees. it got far hotter than that. I guess the belief is that whoever applied the nanothermite applied so much that it was possible to disperse it far enough upon collision to avoid ignition. funny that a group so tied to remaining hidden would use a superfluous amount of a very traceable compound.
2. their nano thermite is aluminum, iron, carbon, and silicon. so incredibly prevalent materials I would be surprised if they weren't found fused together in a fire.
3. Have you seen thermite get ignited? Far more pyrotechnic than what any video has shown. if there was so much as to there be dust, I would expect a much bigger explosion when the planes hit, or anything we see afterwards. it also burns quiet spectacularly too, not an expert on it but no video has shown what I would consider burning thermite.
4. Again not a demolition expert, but the idea behind the thermite was to collapse the building. to do so you would want to be able to control when it all went off. We don't see anything before the planes hit. there is some obvious explosions as the planes, I would argue non-thermite explosions. so this leaves to setting off the thermite until AFTER the planes hit. as people are so want to point out in these things about the free fall it was straight down. so these demolition experts were trusting their set up to survive a plane collision and all go off at the same time, but not before the planes hit, and also not too noticeably later to stick out.

so off the thermite now and to the rest of what little I read from the website.
1. they admit they don't have their own actual evidence. nothing strange there, I doubt the gov was giving out samples.
2. they base everything they do on control tests, nothing could simulate what actually went on there, simply from the complexity.
3. most of their issues are with, rightly, some of NISTS reporting and statements. NIST got stuff wrong, not doubt about it. If anything, to me, this tells me its not a conspiracy. Part A to this belief, the government is inept, they would eff up a wet dream. not surprised, at all, that they got stuff wrong in a hugely complex report that relied on hundreds of individual reports, and collection of evidence. Part B of the same is that if they were wanting to cover it up having all the answers would be the best way to do this. or at least more answers than were provided. now it could be a red herring, but I am sticking to Occam's razor here.

as I am sure I will get the typical "buying the government's BS" line again let me re-restate my beliefs here.

I am willing to believe there was some foreknowledge of the government of what was going to happen, and they didn't do everything they could to stop this. kinda similar to what happened at Pearl Harbor. doesn't mean they had a hand in it, but I could believe it. My only particularly strong beliefs are on the building collapse itself. everything I have seen, studied, solved for have fit what we can see in the video.
 
#1,929
#1,929
ajvol01 said:
No.

A new investigation that considers all new evidence that wasn't included in or addressed by the NIST report.

A petition has already been filed and the new evidence will be presented to a federal grand jury in the SDNY.
Click to expand...

Do you have a docket number? I see a lot of talk on truther sites, but there doesn't appear to be anything on the docket.
 
#1,930
#1,930
ClearwaterVol said:
So, the theory is that we allowed 5 jets to be hijacked, 2 of which we knew were going to hit both WTC main buildings. We felt this act of terrorism wasn't enough to gin up the American public, so prior to the hijackings we secretly loaded the buildings with thermite to bring them down in a controlled demolition. Although we knew no plane was going to strike WTC 6, we decided to demolish that one too, prior to the hijackings, of course. Do you guys even realize how absurd that sounds? How many people would have had to participate and keep their mouths shut? If you were going to do it why not make 'em topple and destroy a bunch more stuff and kill more people?
Click to expand...

demolition experts are trained to bring buildings straight down -- i.e. to not topple, and to destroy as little round and about as possible.

remind us: as to what fashion these ^ 3 buildings did come down.
 
#1,931
#1,931
LouderVol said:
technically not yet. taking the tests. I can do, and know, everything an architect knows. I just can't call myself it yet, or stamp drawings.
Click to expand...
Oh I get it dude. Remember I’m an “engineer”. “ “ = no license or stamp. Don’t need it in my field so didn’t bother.
 
#1,936
#1,936
UT-Rex said:
demolition experts are trained to bring buildings straight down -- i.e. to not topple, and to destroy as little round and about as possible.

remind us: as to what fashion these ^ 3 buildings did come down.
Click to expand...
Those buildings had no cantilever. at the time of their collapse they were under no forces except for gravity and whatever wind loads. why would they fall anywhere but straight down? The floors that failed aren't going to fail in a direction that takes them outside the building footprint, they are going to fall straight down. absolutely no reason for them to fall any direction but down.
this is conceptual physics stuff right here. no math even required.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sofflavol
#1,938
#1,938
LouderVol said:
Those buildings had no cantilever. at the time of their collapse they were under no forces except for gravity and whatever wind loads. why would they fall anywhere but straight down? The floors that failed aren't going to fail in a direction that takes them outside the building footprint, they are going to fall straight down. absolutely no reason for them to fall any direction but down.
this is conceptual physics stuff right here. no math even required.
Click to expand...

Really?

He and I were referring to 3 buildings.

Start with this 3rd one, and then compare it to the 2 prior ones (and yes, I'm sure it's likely you've seen this vid multiple x) ...

 
  • Like
Reactions: Pacer92
#1,940
#1,940
I think the real mystery here is why you guys arguing about the technical details of Qanon's 911 truther hypothesis?
 
#1,941
#1,941
UT-Rex said:
Really?

He and I were referring to 3 buildings.

Start with this 3rd one, and then compare it to the 2 prior ones (and yes, I'm sure it's likely you've seen this vid multiple x) ...

Click to expand...

Didn't listen to the video but watched. hadn't seen that one but seen similar ones to it.

I guess you mean look at 4 (WTC) and compare it with the first 3(Controlled demos)?

the collapse is going to start at wherever the damage is. The video of the WTC doesn't show the damaged area, so all you are seeing is the end result that everything is coming down. once it gets falling there is nothing that is going to stop it from falling, hence why it is "free falling". None of the floors are going to be designed to be strong enough to stop another floor from landing on it. some typical safety factors is going to range from .2 to .3 the loads. could be higher, but it will never get to 2x the load that you have in a collapse. and 2x the load is just from 1 floor. you add more floors to that collapse and you are quickly into the area where any resistance by the floors below is negligible.
 
#1,942
#1,942
LouderVol said:
Didn't listen to the video but watched. hadn't seen that one but seen similar ones to it.

I guess you mean look at 4 (WTC) and compare it with the first 3(Controlled demos)?

the collapse is going to start at wherever the damage is. The video of the WTC doesn't show the damaged area, so all you are seeing is the end result that everything is coming down. once it gets falling there is nothing that is going to stop it from falling, hence why it is "free falling". None of the floors are going to be designed to be strong enough to stop another floor from landing on it. some typical safety factors is going to range from .2 to .3 the loads. could be higher, but it will never get to 2x the load that you have in a collapse. and 2x the load is just from 1 floor. you add more floors to that collapse and you are quickly into the area where any resistance by the floors below is negligible.
Click to expand...
What is the expected behavior of a large steel frame building consumed by fire?

Is the WTC 7 collapse an anomaly?
 
#1,944
#1,944
ajvol01 said:
What is the expected behavior of a large steel frame building consumed by fire?

Is the WTC 7 collapse an anomaly?
Click to expand...
issue is there aren't really any modern days example of tall towers collapsing. There are some in like Russia/India, and some under construction. But the worst tower fire I can think of is that one in England a year or so ago. and that wasn't anywhere close to what happened to WTC 7. and that one didn't collapse.

I think for all three you have to look at it as a whole. There was fire, which is unarguably bad. and there was structural damage, either from the planes or debris in the case of WTC 7, which is also unarguably bad. I can't think of any cases where there was both, there may be I just don't know it. In all three cases, one or the other, may not have been enough for the building to collapse, still wouldn't want to work on the structural analysis afterwards though. but both fire and the structural damage is like two lightning strikes.
 
#1,945
#1,945
hndog609 said:
Here's a couple major collapses from just fire. Also bear in mind none of these were structurally damaged as WTC7 was.



Click to expand...

had not seen this. was hoping they would show the collapse, but from the debri you can see it more or less fell straight down.

also around the 90 second mark it looks like their fire separation was working, as it was only the one side on fire.
 
#1,946
#1,946
hndog609 said:
Here's a couple major collapses from just fire. Also bear in mind none of these were structurally damaged as WTC7 was.



Click to expand...


The second video included the comments below

TEHRAN BUILDING COLLAPSE: Investigators Must Consider Explosives At approximately 11:30 AM local time yesterday in Tehran, an iconic 17-story high-rise known as the Plasco Building tragically collapsed after being on fire for some 3 ½ hours. It is not yet known how many firefighters and civilians were killed, but early reports say that anywhere from 20 to 50 are feared dead. Based on preliminary analysis of many videos of the collapse, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth)—a nonprofit that represents more than 2,750 architects and engineers who are calling for a new investigation of the 2001 World Trade Center disaster—strongly urges President Rouhani, Iranian authorities, and the people of Iran to thoroughly investigate the possible use of explosives in the Plasco Building’s shocking demise, and to act swiftly and decisively to preserve the physical evidence. Let us be clear: It is impossible to know at this early stage what caused the structure to suddenly come crashing down. But, as with any proper forensic investigation, no plausible scenario should be ruled out—especially when the available data seem to support that scenario. Here, six separate videos we have compiled (https://youtu.be/_MgJTa7SDaY) show what appear to be—and in some cases sound like—explosions emanating from the tower in sequential patterns as it began to crumble. The building’s tumultuous fall is then accompanied by thick, energetic, rapidly forming plumes that are reminiscent of what we see in controlled demolitions. Further, the BBC reported that the fires were nearly extinguished—and that emergency personnel and occupants had begun reentering the building—when the collapse unexpectedly occurred. Indeed, videos display very few flames and a thick black smoke—signs of a low-temperature, oxygen-starved fire. Moreover, the inferno was limited to the upper floors, yet the entire 17 stories came down in just a few seconds. We at AE911Truth are all too familiar with events in which a prematurely formed narrative makes it harder to subsequently ascertain what truly happened. We therefore adamantly caution against rushing to any conclusions as investigators work to uncover the truth surrounding this national tragedy in Iran. Should the Plasco Building collapse be found to have been caused by pre-placed explosives, sadly it will not be the first time that explosives were used to bring down a burning high-rise while people were still inside. Contact: Ted Walter (510) 292-4710 twalter@AE911Truth.org
Click to expand...
 
#1,949
#1,949
VolStrom said:
Anyone that thinks that the World Trade Center collapses were fake are mentally deranged.
Click to expand...
Who's saying the collapses were fake?

I've only been asking questions about new evidence and documented eyewitness accounts that were not addressed by the NIST report / official government story.

Do you agree it is a proven/accepted fact that molten metal was found buried beneath the debris of all 3 WTC buildings?

If no, why not? There are many eyewitness and MSM news accounts that document this fact.

If yes, how did it get there? The temperatures from the fire wouldn't reach temperatures required to melt steel (>2700 F).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top