Too many 9/11 conspiracy theories. Let´s narrow it down.

Originally posted by rush969

Originally posted by abcdef
The answer to all of these is NOT AT ALL.

Remember, using the bomb's lithium initiators and its detonators would simply produce massive non-nuclear conventional explosions, but with the same colour and style.

Well. Those "massive non-nuclear conventional explosions" are nowhere to be found in any video footage of the collapses!!

Laughable rubbish! The impact of the "planes" produced huge explosions.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by rush969

 

Not to mention....there is NO video evidence at all to support the contention of massive explosions, in the base of the WTC Towers.

My uncle eats cheese and 25th December is Christmas Day. Any other irrelevant rubbish you want to pump out? I utterly fail to understand what this spurious "base of WTC" stuff has to got to do with anything that I wrote.

The collapses are clear to see, on every video. The collapse begins at the point of impact, in each case.

A BALD LIE. The collapse began ABOVE the impact point.

The progression continues downward, as the mass above, under the force of gravity, overwhelms the structure beneath it....BECAUSE, once the major portion above the impact zones began to fall, the loads it imposed on the building's structural supports beneath it were OUTSIDE the original design parameters.

Again, BALDY UNTRUE. To stand, the WTC towers need 12 trusses to stand, they had 47. They could have been filled form floor to ceiling with solid slate billard tables and would not have buckled.

The towers went into free fall which is not possible unless all structural support had already been destroyed.

The structure was strongest, vertically, to withstand and support the static weight of the mass of building above. In normal design, that is.

Tremendous, undesigned-for shearing forces were imposed, as the damaged sections immediately beneath upper portion gave way.

UNTRUE. As each fell into its own footprint, there would have been very little lateral force.

In no case, ever, do the videos show any part of the lower portion of the building blowing up, as would bwe required by this "Nukes In The Basement" concept...(doesn't even count as a theory, and certainly not even a valid hypothesis, either...since it has NO evidence to support it).

What's this NUKES IN THE BASEMENT go to do with what I have written? I have never mentioned "Nukes IN The Basement".

Originally posted by abcdef

Originally posted by rush969

Originally posted by abcdef
The answer to all of these is NOT AT ALL.

Remember, using the bomb's lithium initiators and its detonators would simply produce massive non-nuclear conventional explosions, but with the same colour and style.

Well. Those "massive non-nuclear conventional explosions" are nowhere to be found in any video footage of the collapses!!

Laughable rubbish! The impact of the "planes" produced huge explosions.

Sorry. The impact of the planes was LONG BEFORE the collapse of the buildings. So, I think you are not reading with attention what I write.
Again:
Those "massive non-nuclear conventional explosions" are nowhere to be found in any video footage of the collapses!!

reply to post by abcdef


OK....sorry about the "Nukes in the Basement".

For a moment there, it seemed, once you advocated the use of "nukes" in the WTC, that you were on that bandwagon, because that's the ride all the other "nuke" believers are on. Guess you are taking a different road?

I think you may've misunderstood, also...I agree, somewhat, that the collapse began above the impact points...because, well...that's the bit (the BIG bits) that began to fall, initially.

What is more, we, on video, only see the EXTERIOR, and I daresay a whle heck of a lot of other things must have been occuring inside, in many different ways.

However, back to "nukes" (or even your idea of lithium detonators)...

As I said, most of the "nukes" people like to insist that they were "hidden" in the basements, else they would have been quite noticeable, to the tenants, eh?

How do you solve this conundrum?

Also, care to cite examples of the "lithium detonators" in action?

So what I propose is to make a list, an inventory to try and separate the reasonable, the credible, the possible, the logical, from the preposterous, unbelievable and plain crazy stuff.

first of all what is reasonable and credible and logical is in the eye of the beholder, you will never be able to make a thread like that

also, i beleive lately there is a disinfo and infiltration movement of conspiracy theories, this thread is one in a long list of the 'watering down' of 9 11 truth movements

my theory is that the method to dismantle the truth movement at work here is to establish that " yes it possible for the mojority of people to agree or disagree on what is logical and not logical for 9 11 conspiracies, and thus reach a 'truth' on the whole issue"

here is the 'problem' with this

there is a thread on ats recently about startling new numbers of people joining, personally i beleive they are disinfo agents, and when their numbers out number us, they can easily do a couple of things

the first is they can make an agreeable census among most theorist that , for example , 9 11 was a demolition and the basketball player kobe was the mastermind behind it, he HATES the USA (he really doesn't, i don't think so at least) ... a theory like this, if made to look like it is the vast majority opinion of the 9 11 truth movement will discredit the whole movement enough by making it a stupid joke

the second is threads like this will 'water down' theories, for example every theory on 9 11 isn't simple, everyone beleives different things, like who was the master mind, where and when, and more importantly HOW it happened... most people agree that 9 11 was caused by the us government, but the details about it, people have different opinions on

they can water out people who have good theories on the little details by making the whole theory seem like crap because a bigger detail is easily pursued as 'too crazy to be true' when the big picture is deleted, so are the minor details of it that could be correct

i have no idea is this post or this poster is trying to do that, probably not, but i don't like the way this is going

i think ANYONE can post ANYTHING and ANY THEORY that they want about 9 11

no matter how crazy or illogical, it takes the rational mind to decipher the truth anyway

whos with me

Originally posted by rush969

Originally posted by abcdef

Originally posted by rush969

Originally posted by abcdef
The answer to all of these is NOT AT ALL.

Remember, using the bomb's lithium initiators and its detonators would simply produce massive non-nuclear conventional explosions, but with the same colour and style.

Well. Those "massive non-nuclear conventional explosions" are nowhere to be found in any video footage of the collapses!!

Laughable rubbish! The impact of the "planes" produced huge explosions.

Sorry.

Yes, you should be.

The impact of the planes was LONG BEFORE the collapse of the buildings. So, I think you are not reading with attention what I write.
Again:

Why? WHat's the point of just repeating irrelevant claptrap?

Those "massive non-nuclear conventional explosions" are nowhere to be found in any video footage of the collapses!!

Clearly you are severely illiterate. As I made clear,massive explosions occured during the impact of the "planes" which took place not months before, but ON THE SAME DAY. Hence, lithium initiators would have sprayed the same chemicals into the WTC, colouring the clouds from the explosions and tainting the final clouds at the time of attack to make them similar in style and colour to that of a nuclear explosion.

reply to post by weedwhacker


May central point is that people have reasons usually for why they come to some conclusion. The "Nukes in the basement" is a theory reached based primarily ojn the evidence that they clouds that eminated from the collapse had the stame style and colour as a nuclear explosion. Nuclear explosions however are coloured in a big way by the bomb initiators. If someone flew nuclear missiles into the WTC with the fissionable material taken out, leaving just the bomb initiators and detonators in place it would have the same effect.

Now, the planes disappeared from the radar shortly before impact. Now from evidence in the Falklands War,Nato computers generally wrk the same way and only tell you three types of objects:-

1. Your missiles and planes
2. Your potential enemy's missiles and planes
3. Civilian missiles and planes.

NORAD and other NATO grade radar systems are blind to one type of missile and plane....those of your allies.

Now here are some interesting facts....

- At least the second impacting object upon the WTC came from the SEA side of Manhattan Island, not the land.
- Langley is not totallly on Nato grade radar so could logically see missiles fired that are from a "friendly" country.
- HMS Trafalgar, a British nuclear submarine was test launching cruise missiles in the second week of September 2001 off the eastern seaboard of the USA near or in Whiskey 386.
- Guidance and mainenance of British cruise missiles is not fdone by the Royal Navy itself, but by a defence contractor who might seem familiiar to many...Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. KBR would have had full access necessary to simply switch circuit boards on both the Submarine and on the missiles themselves to allow them to hijack these missiles.
- Through the UK, KBR would have had easy access to be able to hack NORAD had they wanted to.
- The total surveillance society stuff instituted in the UK after 9/11 would have provided perfect cover to silence witnesses whilst the Truth Movement searched in vain on the wrong continent for a whistle-blower who did not exist to come forward.

Hence, if all these facts are considered, KBR/Halliburton had MEANS, MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY to have done pretty much most of 9/11, leaving the US Dept of Defence and military in the clear.

Originally posted by abcdef

Clearly you are severely illiterate.

Hence, lithium initiators would have sprayed the same chemicals into the WTC, colouring the clouds from the explosions and tainting the final clouds at the time of attack to make them similar in style and colour to that of a nuclear explosion.

You, on the other hand, are very polite and educated.

And the evidence of this has been shown.............where??
Care to back this up??
And also, while you´re at it, please tell me what would be the object of all this complication??
Twisted evil minds playing with us perhaps??



[edit on 12-4-2010 by rush969]

[edit on 12-4-2010 by rush969]

[edit on 13-4-2010 by rush969]

I thought the reason the nuke theory came up was because when people suggested thermite, it was calculated that thermite wouldn't have enough energy to create that much molten metal, so what does have enough energy???? nukes. but the theory is just suggesting its just simply something with more energy than thermite, not saying it has to be a nuke.

I never herd anything about smoke color or anything before. link to more info on this please?

and btw I have no links to back up anything i just said, just something i read on here at one point.

reply to post by abcdef
An interesting post,abcdef! I never knew about KBR's connections to the RAF and Halliburton seems to lurk in the background of 911.

Originally posted by abcdef
- Guidance and mainenance of British cruise missiles is not fdone by the Royal Navy itself, but by a defence contractor who might seem familiiar to many...Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. KBR would have had full access necessary to simply switch circuit boards on both the Submarine and on the missiles themselves to allow them to hijack these missiles.

Total nonsense. KBR refuels and takes care of maintenance aboard nuclear submarines for the British navy. They don't do the guidance and maintenance of the missiles in the sense you're trying to imply.

Originally posted by ohhwataloser
I thought the reason the nuke theory came up was because when people suggested thermite, it was calculated that thermite wouldn't have enough energy to create that much molten metal, so what does have enough energy???? nukes.

For me the probelm is the reports that the EPA blamed radiation at the crash sites on depleted uranium from the planes.

Problem is the 757 and 767 do not carry DU, they carry Tungsten.

reply to post by abcdef


Based on your two successive posts....are you just postulating ideas? Almost seems as if you're throwing out concepts for a novel, or a screenplay, or something. Making stuff up?

Hence, lithium initiators would have sprayed the same chemicals into the WTC, colouring the clouds from the explosions and tainting the final clouds at the time of attack to make them similar in style and colour to that of a nuclear explosion.

Just what sources do you reference, here?

What particular "colours" and "tainting" did the "final clouds" at the WTC Towers have that sets them apart in some way, or that is a certain indication of "lithium detonators" in their "style and colour"?

Photographic examples would be highly useful.

Now, certainly everyone has seen the videos over and over again, of the fireballs and smoke from the WTC. The colours looked perfectly normal to me (and to just about every other adult on the planet) given what we know about fuel/air explosions, and airplane crashes.

Here are some video examples of other airplane crashes, and resulting fireballs and smoke. Hope these aren't claimed as "faked" somehow??













[edit on 13 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by abcdef

evidence that they clouds that eminated from the collapse had the stame style and colour as a nuclear explosion.

This is wrong.
Who said this?? Care to back this up??

3. Civilian missiles and planes.

Never heard of "civilian missiles".

- Langley is not totallly on Nato grade radar so could logically see missiles fired that are from a "friendly" country.

See missiles fired from a friendly country??
Are you serious??
You seem to be just making stuff up randomly!!

- HMS Trafalgar, a British nuclear submarine was test launching cruise missiles in the second week of September 2001 off the eastern seaboard of the USA near or in Whiskey 386.

So, we can conclude now that the HMS Trafalgar fired a "friendly missile at the WTC!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOW!!!!!!!!

see what i mean

the whole 9 11 conspiracy theory is going to be discredited because people can't agree on what color the smoke cLoud was or should have been?



[edit on 4/13/2010 by indigothefish]

nvm found what i was looking for

[edit on 13-4-2010 by ohhwataloser]

reply to post by indigothefish


I believe I understand now what the derailment of a thread is.
Or people simply lost interest in discussing this proposal.
It´s not about proof, it´s actually about opinions, to find out how many share my own.
Namely, that the following 5 theories don´t have merit, and are being maintained in the conspiracy discussion with no proof or supporting circumstantial evidence.
They are based IMHO in “ideas” that some people came up with:

1.- The no plane´s hitting the WTC towers, or holograms theory.
(No one has argued in favor of this theory. So I believe this one to be a hoax in most people´s opinion. Maybe we could take this one off.)

2.- Right there with no planes would also be DEW. In the form of a weapon fired from another building or from space. Neither one has credibility IMO.

3.- Remote controlled hijacked passenger jets.

4.- Remote controlled secret military jets disguised as passenger jets.

5.- Mini nukes used to bring down the WTC Towers.
(Arguing the color of smoke clouds from the towers collapse and debris has been demonstrated to be nonsense.)

Many other theories that were not in the OP showed up “as expected”, but maybe we can get back to the original proposal.
To those interested, thanks.