Alternative 9/11 Theories

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Thanks for posting that

It's something I've tried to bring up a few times - that conventional explosives fail to fit the observed events to an even greater degree than the non-explosive theories. As for non-explosive techniques like thermite, well that doesn't propel anything at all, it just allows gravity to take over.

Explosions on the required scale would have hardly left any intact windows in Manhattan and smaller pieces of material would have made it to the river and beyond.

I know there are compelling reports of explosions but none were on the scale necessary to damage the structure of such buildings, let alone propel heavy steel components any distance. There was the basement explosion but all it seems to have achieved is making a mess of the parking area and the source of that one is still very unclear.



[edit on 13/5/2008 by Pilgrum]

reply to post by Seymour Butz


As ANOK stated you actually proved squat.

Please provide me with some sort of evidence as to how a gravity driven collapse can produce so much force to eject steel weighing in the tons laterally upto 500 feet away embedding steel straight into buildings? How is that possible?

Now if explosives were not used why didnt NIST test the steel for traces of explosive compound to put peoples ease at rest, knowing the substancial evidence suggesting explosives were present in the buildings from eye witness accounts on the scene of 9/11?

Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

Peace

CR

Originally posted by Conspiracy Realist
reply to post by Seymour Butz

 

Now if explosives were not used why didnt NIST test the steel for traces of explosive compound to put peoples ease at rest, knowing the substancial evidence suggesting explosives were present in the buildings from eye witness accounts on the scene of 9/11?

I would liken the reasoning to the following:
If someone is shot to death, does the coroner test to see if they died from cancer?
Just my opinion of course

Originally posted by _Del_
reply to post by ANOK

 

You've never snapped a twig and seen a piece be ejected laterally? It's tension provided by gravity, not gravity pulling it sideways.

LOL keep at it you're proving more and more that you do not understand the concepts you keep using for examples.

What the hell has that to with the towers collapses. A foot stepping on a twig exerts a force, what is that force in that did that to the towers?
And no it is not the force of gravity causing the twig to move it's the foot.
Again you think it was a gravity fed collapse, where is the force from the foot in the collapses. Maybe Allah's foot?

Do you guys have GED's lol...

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by _Del_
reply to post by ANOK

 

You've never snapped a twig and seen a piece be ejected laterally? It's tension provided by gravity, not gravity pulling it sideways.

LOL keep at it you're proving more and more that you do not understand the concepts you keep using for examples.

What the hell has that to with the towers collapses. A foot stepping on a twig exerts a force, what is that force in that did that to the towers?
And no it is not the force of gravity causing the twig to move it's the foot.
Again you think it was a gravity fed collapse, where is the force from the foot in the collapses. Maybe Allah's foot?

Do you guys have GED's lol...

Why not simply post the math to refute the statement?

Oh and personal attacks are prohibited on ATS.

reply to post by jfj123


Ha and why don't you? I'd love to see the math that proves global collapse is possible from asymmetrical damage and office fires.
I'd love to see your maths...

And what insult? That was a question, because you all seem to be lacking in some very basic understanding of physics, and I fail to understand why?

Compression could be one possibility of why the beams got flung far. If the force pressing down on the top of a beam was high enough and the beam bowed out to one side, there's a chance it could break at the top and bottom and get flung outwards.

I'm not saying this is what happened, just offering a suggestion.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Conspiracy Realist
reply to post by Seymour Butz

 

Now if explosives were not used why didnt NIST test the steel for traces of explosive compound to put peoples ease at rest, knowing the substancial evidence suggesting explosives were present in the buildings from eye witness accounts on the scene of 9/11?

I would liken the reasoning to the following:
If someone is shot to death, does the coroner test to see if they died from cancer?
Just my opinion of course

Once again you refutted what exactly?

Your dodging the questions as usual..... and your most certainly not comparing apples with apples.

There were hundreds of witness's hearing explosions and seeing flash's of light including firefighters, police and even reporters. So common sense should prevail in the form of a investigation of testing the steel for compounds of explosives.

Once again to prove that EXPLOSIVES of some sort were not used for the collapse of the Twin Towers why did NIST not test for explosive compounds to finally put an end to "Conspiracy Theorists" claims of a CD????

You fail to answer the question rather you try and derail what has been stated numerous times now.

Peace

CR

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by jfj123

 

Ha and why don't you? I'd love to see the math that proves global collapse is possible from asymmetrical damage and office fires.
I'd love to see your maths...

And what insult? That was a question, because you all seem to be lacking in some very basic understanding of physics, and I fail to understand why?

I'm just asking you to back up your claim. I am making no such claims at the moment.

Also, you're insulting our intellectual level which is what's called an insult. Since you say we aren't understanding, explain it to us in detail. Put your money where your mouth is.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Realist

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Conspiracy Realist
reply to post by Seymour Butz

 

Now if explosives were not used why didnt NIST test the steel for traces of explosive compound to put peoples ease at rest, knowing the substancial evidence suggesting explosives were present in the buildings from eye witness accounts on the scene of 9/11?

I would liken the reasoning to the following:
If someone is shot to death, does the coroner test to see if they died from cancer?
Just my opinion of course

Once again you refutted what exactly?

Nothing. I was simply answering a question that was posted based on my opinion.

Your dodging the questions as usual..... and your most certainly not comparing apples with apples.

I'm not dodging any questions. I'm simply giving a POSSIBILITY as to why they didn't test for explosives.

There were hundreds of witness's hearing explosions and seeing flash's of light including firefighters, police and even reporters. So common sense should prevail in the form of a investigation of testing the steel for compounds of explosives.

Yes but that wasn't his question.

Once again to prove that EXPLOSIVES of some sort were not used for the collapse of the Twin Towers

This is what's known as a double negative and it's not possible to answer. I can just as easily come back and say prove explosives were used.

why did NIST not test for explosive compounds to finally put an end to "Conspiracy Theorists" claims of a CD????

Because their job wasn't to pander to conspiracy theorists but simply find the facts.

You fail to answer the question rather you try and derail what has been stated numerous times now.
Peace
CR

This statement is incorrect.

Originally posted by ANOK

LOL you get funnier. Please explain how gravity can laterally eject pieces of steel weighing in the tons and inbed them in other buildings.

I was correct.

You didn't understand the calculations, nor the implications of what it means when it is shown that to hurl ONE 600kg piece of steel requires a blast that would be noticeable by all and throw shrapnel all over Manhatten.

I've absolutely shown that there's no way explosives could have been used to hurl these pieces you ask about.

I am not required to tell you how it could happen, however.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Realist

Now if explosives were not used why didnt NIST test the steel for traces of explosive compound to put peoples ease at rest, knowing the substancial evidence suggesting explosives were present in the buildings from eye witness accounts on the scene of 9/11?

Peace

CR

Guess you're gonna ignore the fact that even ANOK didn't even try to defend the 8-10 second claim. Is it sinking in yet? It's a lie that even CTerz here don't try to push anymore because it's too embarassing, even for them, to make that claim......

There's other tests whether or not explosives were used. Did you know that?

1- audio. Nothing where you can hear multiple 700 kg worth of TNT going off during the collapse.

2- video. No recordings of shrapnel being blown all over.

3- the steel actually WAS inspected at the landfill sites, and nothing was seen.

reply to post by jfj123

Nothing. I was simply answering a question that was posted based on my opinion.

Opinions are not facts. The fact of the matter is that NIST FAILED to test for explosive residue on the steel. Surely a simple process.

I'm not dodging any questions. I'm simply giving a POSSIBILITY as to why they didn't test for explosives.

Well knowing the numerous witness's including Firefighters, Police and reporters on the scene on 9/11 stating that "loud explosions" and "flashes of light" were present in the buildings, surely this would alarm the bells at NIST to test for explosive residue. I dont understand why you consistently fail to see the point.

A FULL INVESTIGATION should indeed be a FULL INVESTIGATION. All possible outcomes should have been investigated including EXPLOSIVES. Are you refutting that?

This is what's known as a double negative and it's not possible to answer. I can just as easily come back and say prove explosives were used.

Nope its not known as a double negative more known as COMMON SENSE. You forgot to type in the rest of what i wrote. Once again to prove that EXPLOSIVES of some sort were NOT used for the collapse of the Twin Towers why did NIST not test for explosive compounds to finally put an end to "Conspiracy Theorists" claims of a CD?

Because their job wasn't to pander to conspiracy theorists but simply find the facts.

Your right but there responsibility was to conduct a FULL INVESTIGATION. Was this conducted? No...Why? Because despite all the evidence and eye witness testimonials from various people from all walks of life including First responders such as Police and firefighters who state on record that they heard "explosions" and saw "flashes of light", the testing of explosive residue was not conducted so therefore NIST failed in there attempt to conduct a FULL INVESTIGATION.

Peace

CR

[edit on 13-5-2008 by Conspiracy Realist]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by ANOK

LOL you get funnier. Please explain how gravity can laterally eject pieces of steel weighing in the tons and inbed them in other buildings.

I was correct.

You didn't understand the calculations, nor the implications of what it means when it is shown that to hurl ONE 600kg piece of steel requires a blast that would be noticeable by all and throw shrapnel all over Manhatten.

I've absolutely shown that there's no way explosives could have been used to hurl these pieces you ask about.

I am not required to tell you how it could happen, however.

So how do you explain scientifically with calculations if you may, how steel weighing in the tons was magically flung laterally 500ft away into buildings with out the need for explosives?

No one is saying TNT was used. With all due respect we will NEVER know what TYPE of explosive was used. But was an explosive material used? YES... Type: Unknown.

Peace

CR

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Sry but another rediculas answer...

If you can't explain how those pieces were ejected then how can you, with so much false confidence, argue that it was a natural reaction to a gravity fed collapse?

If it wasn't then it would mean there was some other energy (which doesn't need to be known) must have been acting on the towers?

Let me ask another question, if ejected steel is a natural part of a gravity fed collapse, why did we not see a similar occurrence with WTC 7, that conveniently fell neatly into its own footprint?

In fact has any of the anomalies, witnessed during the collapse of the two towers, have ever been seen before in a gravity fed collapse?

Where is the precedence for what you're claiming? Where is the physics laws that explain what you're claiming?

We have Newton on our side? Have you ever heard of him?

It's also telling when you have to put words in our mouths that are not being said, you are either not reading and just assuming, or you simply don't understand. You're so obvious, captain.

[edit on 13/5/2008 by ANOK]

Gazillionith Reminder

This thread is about ALTERNATIVE THEORIES.

Not the same old childish bickering and name calling that "truthers" so love to devolve every thread with an opposing viewpoint to mainstream "truther" views.

reply to post by WraothAscendant



Why did you ignore my alternative theory earlier. I said the towers didn't collapse, provided you with some pictures of real building collapses and you said they had nothing to do with the towers.
Why have you not posted pictures of a building ejecting steel and pulverizing concrete like we saw happen in the towers?
You claim that there is no reason not to expect the concrete dust cloud but you have not provided any examples or proof of why this should have happened in a collapse.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Realist
reply to post by jfj123

 

Nothing. I was simply answering a question that was posted based on my opinion.

Opinions are not facts. The fact of the matter is that NIST FAILED to test for explosive residue on the steel. Surely a simple process.

You are correct. Opinions are not facts. My OPINION (as previously stated) gave a possible reasons as to why they didn't test for explosives.

I'm not dodging any questions. I'm simply giving a POSSIBILITY as to why they didn't test for explosives.

Well knowing the numerous witness's including Firefighters, Police and reporters on the scene on 9/11 stating that "loud explosions" and "flashes of light" were present in the buildings, surely this would alarm the bells at NIST to test for explosive residue. I dont understand why you consistently fail to see the point.

You're asking the wrong person. Ask the NIST and tell us what they say.

A FULL INVESTIGATION should indeed be a FULL INVESTIGATION. All possible outcomes should have been investigated including EXPLOSIVES. Are you refutting that?

Yes. Investing all possible outcomes would take forever as there are almost an infinite number of hypothetical outcomes.

This is what's known as a double negative and it's not possible to answer. I can just as easily come back and say prove explosives were used.
Nope its not known as a double negative more known as COMMON SENSE.

No, it's still known as a double negative.

You forgot to type in the rest of what i wrote. Once again to prove that EXPLOSIVES of some sort were NOT used for the collapse of the Twin Towers why did NIST not test for explosive compounds to finally put an end to "Conspiracy Theorists" claims of a CD?

I already answered that question. Their job description probably didn't include pandering to conspiracy theorists hypotheticals. Since you want them to investigate what CT'ers want answers to then they should also have investigated the holographic plane idea, the anti-matter bomb idea, the nuclear bomb idea, the fusion bomb idea, the Directed Energy weapon idea, etc... These things are all ideas that some CTers want investigated. Should they have investigated these things too? CT'ers claim there is evidence for these ideas also.



[edit on 14-5-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 14-5-2008 by jfj123]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

Gazillionith Reminder

This thread is about ALTERNATIVE THEORIES.

Not the same old childish bickering and name calling that "truthers" so love to devolve every thread with an opposing viewpoint to mainstream "truther" views.

Which alternative ideas would you like to discuss. I'll limit my posts to info about them. Thanks.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Realist

No one is saying TNT was used. With all due respect we will NEVER know what TYPE of explosive was used. But was an explosive material used? YES... Type: Unknown.

Peace

CR

TNT equivalent = TNT equivalent.

It doesn't matter if TNT or RDX or C-4 or ANFO is the proposed explosive. They all produce explosive effect that can be standardized to TNT and will produce the same explosive effect.

But like the calculations that you didn't understand, you don't understand this either.