Thread: Tin foil hat time

http://stj911.org/actions/NIST_DQA_Petition.pdf

The Raw Story » Ex-FBI Agent: Why I Support a New 9/11 Investigation
When I got a chance, about 8 ½ months after 9-11 to tell what I knew, I did so and my disclosures led to further investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector General and figured in the 9-11 Commission Report.

Well what did she know? was it as crazy as some of the other suggestions on the raw story? Bit further down we have claims of remote controlled planes, mossad planing 7/11 and claims Obama continues the 'cover up'.

too many red flags, and there is always a scientific explanation for both sides of the story, which basically means we have nothing to rely on. The official story is as much a conspiracy as the other loonies ones out there.

WTC demolition were controlled, WTC7 it's a bit harder to know what happened, but the Pentagon is the smoking gun

To think that those collapses were perfectly "natural" using "some" version of a scientific experiment or "quoting" official reports is beyond naive.

The truth is that a lot of "evidence" have been disregarded and too many officials happy to see the whole story disappear.

Strange that these three high rise buildings were the only ones in history to ever collapse in this manner (closely mimicking controled demolition) as a result of fire?

we will never see the full evidence because no fully independent investigation was carried out, it was all with an agenda

I mean they fucking found the passport of one of the terrorists at the bottom of the tower

the bigger the lie, the more credible it is

Originally Posted by Panda

Strange that these three high rise buildings were the only ones in history to ever collapse in this manner (closely mimicking controled demolition) as a result of fire?

http://www.haifire.com/presentations...pse_Survey.pdf

What's even stranger is how much it must suck to be you, and to not even bother doing a minimal amount of research before shooting your mouth off with inanities.

Here's an important lesson -- "just because you say so, doesn't make it so"

The 'only ones in history' ?

I don't think so.

A total of 22 buildings from 1970-2002 suffered partial or total collapses due to fire, with 15 from the US and two from Canada. The number of fire-induced collapse events can be categorized by building construction material as follows:

• Concrete: 7
• Structural steel: 6
• Brick/masonry: 5
• Unknown: 2
• Wood: 2

Three of these events were from the 1970’s, three were from the 1980’s, four
were from the 1990’s, and twelve occurred in 2000 and beyond.

Of specific interests - there's a nice list at the link above, listing quite a few steel and/or concrete reinforced buildings that ALL COLLAPSED after fires had been burning for one to several hours. Weird, huh, how these events mirror the conspiracies..?

Not that these links will make any difference to the morons in this thread, spouting about conspiracies, as they require to be literate, but for the rest of us, they contain some really good architectural and structural information. Well worth reading up on:

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History

Nice video too, at the above link, listing many more buildings that collapsed on themselves from prolonged fire (boohoo, more bad news for Panda).

More listings.

http://forthardknox.com/2008/01/25/s...e-before-9-11/

The sad part is it took me less than 2 minutes to find these lists and articles.

^Did those building fall at almost free fall speed? Probably not. Did those building end up with a pile of rubble and were not pulverised into dust? Probably so. You are always the one to challange peoples intelligence or lack of on this site. I have viewed the site you mentioned. Did you notice something? The building in the photo has toppled over and is recognizable

All the video proves is how silly you are. Everyone of those building toppled or collapsed at its weakest point. If we are to beileve this, then surely WTC should have collapsed around the point of impact, or atleast one of them leaving something standing. That's right the heatproof material was blown of the steal!

You amaze me with your rhetoric. You claim to be so much more intelligent than the rest, or us theorists, yet you are so so narrow minded an always the first to throw insults. Now that's intelligent.

No doubt you will have a smart arse answer for that.

^^ Not a very convincing argument there Duck.
So a very few "low rise", steel framed buildings have partially collapsed due to intense fire. A telling quote from one of your links below.

"Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure."

The fact remains that no other high rise building has ever collapsed in such a manner so closely resembling a controled demolition, due to fire. Let alone 3 of them on the one day.

Maybe do some more research and see what you can come up with.

Were they built to implode?

Originally Posted by Panda

^^ Not a very convincing argument there Duck.
So a very few "low rise", steel framed buildings have partially collapsed due to intense fire. A telling quote from one of your links below.

How quickly you forget your own "No building in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD" statement - which, when proven false, becomes "So, big deal, a very few" steel framed buildings collapsed...

Nice to see how you both selectively remember, and engage in selective reading -- this is also something known as 'lying', but then again, none of your fantasies would hold without fabrications and lying. Must be a pretty lonely world you and your friends inhabit, where you have to make stuff up, in order to hope to give your lives relevance. Embracing the UFO myths too, I take it? Surprised you missed posting with enthusiasm on the "Moon Landings are Fake' thread...

Anyway, as I clearly pointed out -- the links and debunking sites I posted are a waste of time for the morons of your and Jesus Jones' caliber, as you have both just verified to resort to lies and fabrication when confronted with a factual retort to your ill informed statements...

^That's right, throw your dummy out just because we believe differently.

Pre 911 never before in the history of the world had a protected steel structure colapsed due to fire, indeed in 1975 the WTC North tower had a fire that spread from floor to floor and burned for 3 hours without any hint of structural damage, in 2005 Windsor tower in Madrid burned for over 20 hours, 2004, Caracas, Venezuela 17 hours, First Interstate Bank, LA 1988 burned for 3.5 hours, all these building are still standing.

There are two types of people who promote conspiracy theories: 1.) the psychologically unstable, i.e., illiterates who believe in all conspiracy theories because it fills emotional or psychological needs and 2.) people who think for themselves and process information independent of consensus reality.

This second group is quite the opposite of tin hat folks because they are trying to unravel uncomfortable, painful truths about the world. Lumping these two groups together is a convenient way to overcome cognitive dissonance and live a happy, denial-ridden existence. Dismissing all conspiracy theories seems to fill a basic psychological need to be happy.

One example of how a rational person can arrive at the conclusion of a conspiracy is the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Reading the official autopsy of RFK reveals flash burns and a fatal wound behind his right ear. The autopsy concluded that the muzzle of the weapon was within a few inches from the back of RFK's head. However, the official police report and all eyewitness accounts agree that Sirhan Sirhan was always facing RFK and that his revolver was never closer than 1-3 feet from the victim. If one carefully studies the collateral damage and photographic evidence of the bullet holes, there were at least 10 shots fired (Sirhan's gun held 8 bullets). Fast-forward to 2008 where there was additional evidence from acoustic expert Phillip Van Praag showing that 13 shots were fired.

Careful, objective study of the physical evidence and eyewitness accounts indicate more than one shooter. I don't say this as a tin hat conspiracy theorist trying to fill a psychological need. Actually, the existence of this conspiracy is quite disturbing. Filtering out the noise of the corporate media and sifting through the best available evidence is not always easy.

New evidence challenges official picture of Kennedy shooting | Science | guardian.co.uk

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

Originally Posted by Panda

^^ Not a very convincing argument there Duck.
So a very few "low rise", steel framed buildings have partially collapsed due to intense fire. A telling quote from one of your links below.

How quickly you forget your own "No building in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD" statement - which, when proven false, becomes "So, big deal, a very few" steel framed buildings collapsed...

Dont get your tail feathers in a knot there Duck.
Heres my post quoted correctly, --

"Strange that these three high rise buildings were the only ones in history to ever collapse in this manner (closely mimicking controled demolition) as a result of fire?"

Now, who's the liar ?

As for the conspiricist the majority have studied both sides of the story in relation to 911, and usually make the decision for themselves with which side of the fence they wish to stand. You on the other-hand discount all other possible explanations because it is just too much for you to handle and automatically believe the info you’re forcibly fed; and that’s understandable because it’s a comfortable position to be in. Your gripe has nothing to do with the truth whatever that may be, you just can’t accept that there are people who have the ability to think outside of the box

And as you constantly seem to label people who question 911 with UFOs sightings and green lizards, to me just shows how gullible you are and the effect the media and government has had on you.

I ‘can’ believe that a building could fall due to fire, and as you have pointed out with the info that is in fact true. What I have trouble in accepting is that 3 buildings fell in exactly the same way at almost free-fall speed. If it had just been the one, the NIST and the government explanations may have been believable.

As for euphemism, isn’t that what the government constantly hides behind?

Whiteshiva. No one is disputing that, what you said is true. But logic would suggest that there should be a pile of rubble at the bottom, not pulverised dust. Logic would also suggest that the building would topple at its weakest point; as other buildings have show in Daffy's info for example. Logic would also suggest that it would be near enough impossible for 3 building to fall in exactly the same manner.

The real truth seekers just want a proper investigation.

Top paragraph was aimed at Daffy btw.

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Originally Posted by madasafish

Well, we could start with the open-air burning temperature of kerosene being 287.5 degrees Celcius, somewhat lower than the 1570 degree melting point of steel.

You don't need to melt steel for it to start losing its structural integrity. In addition, thermals expansion of the steel will add significantly to the stresses on the structural columns.

Originally Posted by madasafish

After all, the WTC was in the open air, not in a specialist environment attempting to maximise the burning efficiency of the kerosene, was it not?

Most likely, the burning building acted like a furnace, not an open pool fire of kerosine. The exhaust temperatures of jet engines are in the order of 6-700 deg C, and you can reach much higher temperatures than that inside the turbine.

If you want to discuss issues, please ensure that you at the very least have a basic understanding of them, rather than just regurgitating rumours and baseless claims.

All you are providing here are claims, most, if not all of them have been refuted. If you conspiracy theorists could come up with actual facts rather than just theories, perhaps people would take you more serious.

But even if your theory of the building acting like a furnace is correct, (which seems doubtful), how come building number 3 collapsed in exactly the same manner(just like a controled demolition), when no planes crashed into it?
And how come no other high rise buildings around the world have ever imploded in the same way during intense fires?

I'm on the fence as far as the various conspiracy theories go. But seems to be a lot of holes in the official explanation. A lot of questions still unanswered.

I actually feel sorry for those that are so naive that they cannot accept anything other than the 'official' story.

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Most likely, the burning building acted like a furnace, not an open pool fire of kerosine.

How much kerosine was left to burn? Most of it was burned outside the building on impact, to act like a furnace to achieve the heat levels needed to do the damage stated then oxygen would have to be forced in like a blast furnace.

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

The exhaust temperatures of jet engines are in the order of 6-700 deg C, and you can reach much higher temperatures than that inside the turbine.

What are jet engine turbines made of? Nothing that burns or is exposed to heat can reach a temperature grater than that which is burning it.

If the cross section beams buckled and caused a pancake effect collapse then where did the 47 central columns disapear to? They would have been left standing.

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Originally Posted by madasafish

Well, we could start with the open-air burning temperature of kerosene being 287.5 degrees Celcius, somewhat lower than the 1570 degree melting point of steel.

You don't need to melt steel for it to start losing its structural integrity. In addition, thermals expansion of the steel will add significantly to the stresses on the structural columns.

Originally Posted by madasafish

After all, the WTC was in the open air, not in a specialist environment attempting to maximise the burning efficiency of the kerosene, was it not?

Most likely, the burning building acted like a furnace, not an open pool fire of kerosine. The exhaust temperatures of jet engines are in the order of 6-700 deg C, and you can reach much higher temperatures than that inside the turbine.

If you want to discuss issues, please ensure that you at the very least have a basic understanding of them, rather than just regurgitating rumours and baseless claims.

All you are providing here are claims, most, if not all of them have been refuted. If you conspiracy theorists could come up with actual facts rather than just theories, perhaps people would take you more serious.

Thank you - I have rather more than a basic understanding of the issues. Are you saying this disqualifies me?

While you are tying yourself up in knots, perhaps you could explain and expand on your theory of how vastly higher temperatures can be reached in a partially burning building, desribed by fire crews in the building at the time as "2 isolated fires" over and above the maximum temperature in an unassisted burn of kerosene. I am sure we could have fun with those theories. Perhaps they will be as entertaining as DrBob's ones that, in fact, what was going on in WTC7 was a scientific experiment of adding pure oxygen under pressures of many atmostpheres in order to acheive temperatures in excess of 1560 degrees Celcuis.

Originally Posted by Panda

But even if your theory of the building acting like a furnace is correct.

Its not just doubtful, its hillarious. Saying it out loud actually made me laugh that someone could be so delusional.

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

No one has touched upon the duel conspiracy regarding the Pentagon damage. Where is the aeroplane evidence in the event?

It all got burnt in the fire?