To all the debunkers: What makes you think its not a conspiracy?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I am confused? please enlighten me...show me some PROOF that you have on ANY of the conspiracy theories that you support. I'm not saying i have all the answers, but I do have common sence.

How about the fact that those tiny floor trusses would definately fail way before the huge (in comparison) outer columns. How NIST can say that the floor trusses pulled the outer columns in is beyond me.

Where's their computer models?

Where's their analysis of the steel?

Where's their lab tests?

Where's their proof of ANY of their theories?

Please show me and I might be willing to take them seriously.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I read what you post and try to show you the facts.

Why? What you consider a fact and what you consider to be refuted by your facts are at times hilarious.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
why are you here? you posts appear to show that you are not interested in it. Do i know the truth? Well.. i have yet to be shown that the offical report is not based on facts.

Nice dodge. You answer my question with two questions? Classic.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I am confused?

What PROOF has the government publicly produced to support their theories?

Finally, I ask you again simply... what is your motive for posting here?

You use veiled, backhanded insults against non-believers, saying you have "common sense" and implying that "we" do not since we disagree... Why bother with "us"?

[edit on 25-7-2007 by Pootie]

Griff,

Have you personally contacted NIST? I believe if you do file the proper paper work you will be able to obtain these records. They were presented at the meetings that were held.

Originally posted by Pootie
Really... How hard is it to eliminate detcord and send an encrypted digital firing signal to a shielded blasting cap or other detonator?

You'd probably know more about it than me. But, I'd say I agree with you.

IEDs can be detonated remotely with Radio Shack technology. Does anyone really believe that the DoD cannot reliably do the same? I just can't believe that.

I didn't know that. I believe RC is a possibility.

Maybe I just have a wild imagination...

Maybe I do too. But, I'd say our imaginations aren't as wild as say NIST. They must really be in imagination world.

I don't know why you people don't read posts... BUT.... Here is your debunker, with a physics explanation. I mean if you guys don't want me to hang around and help, I'll be glad to go back to the UFO boards, but Here is PHYSICALLY how the Meteorite was formed.

ohhh... and I said this, so I don't see the need in quoting it.

but instead of calling us all IDIOTS NOW... And talking about how much you miss somebody who considered your viewpoints before... well you have another person here willing to do the same...

Sorry I'm not in the hundreds of Thousands of Points, because I don't create threads, but If you Live in TN and Need Proof of my Physics Knowledge U2U me and we'll meet. so that said...



about the meteorite (though off topic) I think it was simple physics. I will try to explain my view as simply as possible.

So say a nuclear bomb is exploded in the desert. What happens to the sand at the site of impact?
Its molecular structure is changed, and it is turned to glass. Now, some will assume this molecular change is due to the Thermo Nuclear reaction itself. However this change is not due to that... The change is due to the pressure caused by the thermonuclear reaction.

now let us apply the same theory to the towers. (firstly I accept that the IMPACT FORCE of the planes hitting the towers caused seismic reactions throughout the towers, thus weakening the steel) So the towers are collapsing. Hundreds of Thousands of Tons of Concrete and steel collapsing on each other... Wouldn't the IMPACT FORCE alone be enough to change the chemical structure of the metals and concrete into a meteorite like object?

I believe the only people who can answer this question are on the level with Stephen Hawking and Micho Kaku. so until the REAL BIG NAMES of physics are willing to speak on the topic, we are all going to be stuck speculating, causes and reactions.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
but yet to have come out with one paper that explains the discrepancies of the NIST report. Yes one paper that has been properly looked over by the scientific community.

Has the NIST report been peer reviewed? NO, by definition. They need to release ALL evidence and have independant (i.e. non governmental agencies) verifications of their theories. NIST has failed to do this, but you guys claim we have no peer reviewed counter arguements. How can we counter argue something that itself has never been peer reviewed?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Have you personally contacted NIST? I believe if you do file the proper paper work you will be able to obtain these records. They were presented at the meetings that were held.

Why are the FOIAs for:

- 13,000 video clips and photos
- Pentagon surveillance tapes
- Access to certified physical specimens of WTC steel
and
- Access to all other physical evidence being held by various government agencies

being denied?

You act as if the NIST has not been contacted/FOIA'd 1,000s of times.

They have been contacted so many times that they "published" a non-peer reviewed, selectively worded, ANONYMOUS response to a carefully selected few "public " inquiries.

You can find the POS here...

wtc.nist.gov...

Laughable at best.

[edit on 25-7-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Griff,

Have you personally contacted NIST? I believe if you do file the proper paper work you will be able to obtain these records. They were presented at the meetings that were held.

So, you're saying that Dr. Wood has the structural plans? Because I'm pretty sure that is in one of her requests.

Also, why should I have to put out a freedom of imformation request for evidence that should be readily available for those qualified to peer review? Are they scared or something?

Originally posted by coven
I don't know why you people don't read posts... BUT.... Here is your debunker, with a physics explanation. I mean if you guys don't want me to hang around and help, I'll be glad to go back to the UFO boards, but Here is PHYSICALLY how the Meteorite was formed.

No need to. All are welcome, all are welcome. Quote from Poltergiest.

I understand what you are saying about pressure. But, that goes against the official story also. Pressure would only build up with resistance from the intact structure. Since it fell within a few seconds of freefall, I'd say there was little to no resistance. As always, I could be wrong.

It is not a conspiracy because every sane person knows what happened: Pissed off Muslims took over planes from Boston airport and rammed two into each of the Twin Towers in NYC, one in the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and another failed attacking plane that crashed in PA.

How is that a conspiracy?

I must also say this: Why pick on the American government? After all it has done for its people, why say the American government wants to hurt its own people? Stop lying to me about my country and government, and don't think you can ban me because of this, I've been here longer than most of you.

[edit on 25-7-2007 by nobody]

Originally posted by nobody
How is that a conspiracy?

Wow, you've solved the whole thing. I guess there's no more debate.

Originally posted by Griff
No need to. All are welcome, all are welcome. Quote from Poltergeist.

first off... NICE reference!

I understand what you are saying about pressure. But, that goes against the official story also. Pressure would only build up with resistance from the intact structure. Since it fell within a few seconds of freefall, I'd say there was little to no resistance. As always, I could be wrong.

Wow... you put forth a valid argument. I will have to think on it for a few to see if I can come to a thorough explanation... that said what comes to mind is that the pressure from a free fall would actually be more "focused" on the basement areas, not throughout the building. Thus the meteor can be formed in the basement, without the need for a standard collapse.

anywho... See ya'll in a few hopefully with a more thorough explanation.


Coven

Originally posted by coven
that said what comes to mind is that the pressure from a free fall would actually be more "focused" on the basement areas, not throughout the building. Thus the meteor can be formed in the basement, without the need for a standard collapse.

Valid points. And definately points to consider. Please let us know what you come up with.

I was thinking that since they were floors pressed into one another that it would have happened in the fall, but you have a point that they could have been squashed (for lack of a better word) when they struck the ground.



[edit on 7/25/2007 by Griff]

i dont know anything about demolition....so i have never said that taking down the WTC would require thousands of pounds of TNT...however what i have stated is that a single Van Bomb positioned poorly nearly took out the entire WTC.....and with that stated i cant see why a plane couldnt take it out.....or my more practical theory that they had planted a bomb in the basement remote or physically detonated it when they had visual confirmation of the plane....(with physically you'd need a set of eyes outside)....

Firefighter LT. B. Becker, Middle of page 15

We got to the lobby, and we saw things. We
saw an arrest being made of some Arab-looking type
guy. I think he had a blue uniform type World Trade
Center type maintenance type person. It was my
impression. It didn't seem important to me. It seemed
like he was being arrested by a Port Authority type
policeman. That's my impression. I remember them
putting cuffs on him, and I remember one of the firemen
saying, "Look, they're arresting the guy," and I said,
"Never mind that. Never mind that."

Originally posted by Pootie

IEDs can be detonated remotely with Radio Shack technology. Does anyone really believe that the DoD cannot reliably do the same? I just can't believe that.

I didn't know that. I believe RC is a possibility.

Off The Shelf Technology... Cellphones as triggers... certainly not rocket science. $20 for a used phone, just got to make sure no one calls it on accident.

Think about it...

Cellphone
Estes "Model Rocket" igniter(s)

...

I am certain the DoD/CIA/Mossad/whoever can do a lot better than that...

[edit on 25-7-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
i dont know anything about demolition....so i have never said that taking down the WTC would require thousands of pounds of TNT...however what i have stated is that a single Van Bomb positioned poorly nearly took out the entire WTC.....and with that stated i cant see why a plane couldnt take it out.....or my more practical theory that they had planted a bomb in the basement remote or physically detonated it when they had visual confirmation of the plane....(with physically you'd need a set of eyes outside)....

My mistake in taking what you said wrong. The official line is thousands of pounds of TNT. I actually agree with you that there was a bomb in the basement. I also believe there were bombs in 2 other locations also. The mechanical floors (heavily reinforced floors).

Originally posted by Pootie
I am certain the DoD/CIA/Mossad/whoever can do a lot better than that...

I agree. Plus, with the new knowledge that they could be fired with fibre-optics, really makes you wonder what else is out there.

Originally posted by Griff
I agree. Plus, with the new knowledge that they could be fired with fibre-optics, really makes you wonder what else is out there.

this is what drives me nuts about "debunkers"...

"It could not be CD because they could have only used C4/HMX/RDX with detcord and blasting caps because that is all that I HAVE SEEN and it would have taken months and tons of HE because that is how it is done. Surely they would not be creative. It was top down and you do NOT do a CD top down. ONLY WHAT IS TANGIBLE AND HAS BEEN PROVEN/DONE BEFORE I BELIEVE."

"The official story is true because they SAID SO. I don't need to SEE any PHYSICAL PROOF... I BELIEVE A STORY WITH NO TANGIBLE EVIDENCE THAT CONTAINS MANY "THINGS" THAT HAVE NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE."

A bit of contradicting logic...

I do not know if I am expressing this very well.

Hopefully people get my point.

OK Guys... I have decided to commit a little bit of time on researching just how, and what could cause the meteorite. I do still like my theory, but at the time it is just that. I want to present you folks with evidence (even if it is just a physics lesson) that validates my theory as opposed to just asking you guys to trust me on this...

So basically... By Monday morning expect a nice long post from me, to give you the nitty gritty.

sorry for the delay, but I DO NOT want to make enemies on this site... I spend toooooo much time on it.


Coven Out

Originally posted by Griff
I also believe there were bombs in 2 other locations also. The mechanical floors (heavily reinforced floors).

may i ask your reasoning for the other two locations?....other than the janators and a few others that reported blasts before the plane hit....i have only heard "we heard an explosion" by people outside....