Remembering 9/11

fuji · Sep 18, 2016

SuperCharge said:
All of the evidence was removed

So now the conspiracy involves literally thousands of people, who were involved in the cover-up?

Ludicrous.

Bobzilla said:
Disagree. It's very believable that people with minimal training would be able to hit 2 massive buildings with a plane.

Yeah, but conspiracy theorists require much more expertise from the amateur pilots.

They have to hit the EXACT right floors. When I look at a building I have trouble telling which floor is which from the outside, and they have to figure that out, and fly expertly enough to hit the EXACT right floor.

Otherwise the several tons of thermite they think were somehow secretly planted on that exact floor is in the wrong place.

Then there is the problem of how you plant several tons of thermite with detonators in a way that isn't ignited or destroyed by being doused in jet fuel and set on fire.

fuji · Sep 18, 2016

italianguy74 said:
"how would they know where to plant the thermite exactly where the planes hit" when it was on every floor lmao.

It was not every floor. Both buildings very obviously collapsed from the floors that were hit by the planes. Everyone can see that with their own eyes in most of the YouTube videos of the collapse.

Any theory that does not explain that is refuted.

And let's be clear, you have been very thoroughly refuted, which is why you are now crying.

SuperCharge · Sep 18, 2016

fuji said:
So now the conspiracy involves literally thousands of people, who were involved in the cover-up?

Ludicrous.

Weird how you would interpret what I said to this! Who is to say the people who carted off alll the pipes and blocks to Asia even knew what they were doing. Who said they had to be in the know to be involved! I'm specifically talking about physical scientific proof, of which there is none to test against, independently!

I'm gonna do an exit stage left on this thread as well, you can only walk around in a circle for so long before you start getting dizzy. Peace in the Middle East, over and out!

fuji · Sep 18, 2016

SuperCharge said:
Weird how you would interpret what I said to this! Who is to say the people who carted off alll the pipes and blocks to Asia even knew what they were doing. Who said they had to be in the know to be involved! I'm specifically talking about physical scientific proof, of which there is none to test against, independently!

I'm gonna do an exit stage left on this thread as well, you can only walk around in a circle for so long before you start getting dizzy. Peace in the Middle East, over and out!

So many holes in your "theory". So now there was as dark hand masterminding the cleanup pulling strings to hide the impossible thermite.

The NIST explanation has hardly any problems compared to yours. You could fly a jet through the holes in your "theory".

Still no explanation how the amateurs managed to hit exactly the right floors containing the tons of thermite that somehow didn't ignite when doused in jet fuel and set on fire.

IM469 · Sep 19, 2016

fuji said:
Still no explanation how the amateurs managed to hit exactly the right floors containing the tons of thermite that somehow didn't ignite when doused in jet fuel and set on fire.

Hey conspiracy guys, I got this !

Let's see....

1) It came on the plane as a thermal fused re-enforced steel case in the cargo hold of the plane. While the aluminium and passengers disintegrated, this device was delivered to the floor intact. After a designed interval - the heat activated the device that fragmented with enough energy to blow out the floor support structure initiating the collapse.

2) It was strapped to the bottom of an internal freight elevator which was sent to the floor the plane crashed and jammed there for eventual detonation.

3) Several floors within the expected impact area were rigged for demolition over a couple months under the guise of updating the fire sprinkler system. Only the floors hit by the plane were detonated.

4) Al-Qaeda terrorists kidnapped Mrs Clause and forced Santa to use Christmas magic to delver detonation materials to the floors hit by the planes.

The forth has the support of Robert Limpdick of MIT (janitorial staff) and makes the most sense to me.

Jubee · Sep 20, 2016

fuji said:
Your personal theory is that thermite was set in advance on the exact floors the plane hit?

Ludicrous.

Who's to say thermite was placed all over the place and only triggered after the explosion to aid in the building's demise and eventual collapse?
So not so ludicrous.

And that it leaked out all the way from the center try pour out the side, instead of pouring down the center?

Ludicrous.

Sure, visual effect, for the people, the camera, invoke fear in the moment. Why not?

And that it wasn't destroyed or ignited by the plane which totaled the floors it was on?

Ludicrous.

The majority of the jet fuel was all gone within seconds of impact, hence the bill explosions initially. BOOM GONE!
check out 3:05 below

And that the entire investigation involving thousands of people covered it up?

Ludicrous.

Not so ludicrous, people need to be held accountable.

fuji · Sep 20, 2016

Jubee said:
Who's to say thermite was placed all over the place and only triggered after the explosion to aid in the building's demise and eventual collapse?

The building didn't collapse from everywhere. It collapsed from the impact floor. From the one leaking melted crap that you claim was because of thermite, which was not leaking from any other part of the building.

So you have a problem. Either you have to recant the claim that the melted stuff was because of thermite, or you have to recant the claim that the thermite was everywhere. You can't have it both ways.

Plus you have to explain why the massive fires after the impact didn't ignite it. You know, the fires everybody saw, for which we have eye witness accounts.

The holes in this "theory" are large enough to fly a jumbo jet through. Way more inconsistencies than the NIST report.

The majority of the jet fuel was all gone within seconds of impact, hence the bill explosions initially. BOOM GONE!
check out 3:05 below

Yes, BOOM. And why didn't that ignite the thermite you claim was there. That much jet fuel burning that quickly is a huge amount of heat. Huge. We know there were massive, hot fires. That's what happens when a jet full of fuel crashes: massive fires, which everybody saw.

Yet somehow the many TONS of thermite didn't ignite at that point?

Come on..

Jubee · Sep 20, 2016

fuji said:
The building didn't collapse from everywhere. It collapsed from the impact floor. From the one leaking melted crap that you claim was because of thermite, which was not leaking from any other part of the building.

So you have a problem. Either you have to recant the claim that the melted stuff was because of thermite, or you have to recant the claim that the thermite was everywhere. You can't have it both ways.

Plus you have to explain why the massive fires after the impact didn't ignite it. You know, the fires everybody saw, for which we have eye witness accounts.

The holes in this "theory" are large enough to fly a jumbo jet through. Way more inconsistencies than the NIST report.

Thermite put in an enclosure to protect it from igniting it?

Massive fires not igniting it? Again, a military grade enclosure or way to protect the thermite until required to ignite.
http://www.rense.com/general75/thrm.htm
Much like firefighters that hear popping explosion noises, as though there were explosives being set off.

N.I.S.T. it seems had to change its theory based on empirical stuff, scientific truths that many engineers had some questions in regards to the report. Tail wagging the dog? lol

Yes, BOOM. And why didn't that ignite the thermite you claim was there. That much jet fuel burning that quickly is a huge amount of heat. Huge. We know there were massive, hot fires. That's what happens when a jet full of fuel crashes: massive fires, which everybody saw.

Yes and that was enough to trigger office equipment and furniture and in turn melt steel? LOLLLL

Yet somehow the many TONS of thermite didn't ignite at that point?

I don't think you need many tons, it's pretty crazy stuff. Just place it in the right place, enclose it, hide it within a shaft, behind a beam, whatever, it's protected.
Or are you implying that professionals these days, ex-military or even actual military, explosive professionals couldn't pull something like that off?
I mean "come on", they put a man on the moon in 1969. lol

Come on..

Gets tiring defending highly questionable facts doesn't it? Come on.. lol

Another thing is building 7, go to 1:37 in the video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnht6NCDtJI
Look at how it's still standing and it did for hours after the WTC 1 and 2 fell, then somehow through fires, 7 falls.
Look at the building to the right of 7 in that video, looks to be a bit closer to 1 and 2, it's certainly smaller than 7, it didn't collapse.

Too many holes in their B.S. theories and explanations.

huckfinn · Sep 20, 2016

Jubee said:
I don't think you need many tons, it's pretty crazy stuff. Just place it in the right place, enclose it, hide it within a shaft, behind a beam, whatever, it's protected.
Or are you implying that professionals these days, ex-military or even actual military, explosive professionals couldn't pull something like that off?
I mean "come on", they put a man on the moon in 1969.

There were calculations done that stated it would require at least 20,000 - 30,000 pounds of thermite to do this damage.

fuji · Sep 20, 2016

Jubee said:
Thermite put in an enclosure to protect it from igniting it?

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/296/199/9ff.gif

You have gone off the deep end.

basketcase · Sep 20, 2016

Jubee said:
Who's to say thermite was placed all over the place and only triggered after the explosion to aid in the building's demise and eventual collapse?
So not so ludicrous.
....

Even a stranger claim. For your claim to work, they would have had to have known exactly how the plane would damage the structure to be able to determine where the small amounts of thermite would be required. They would also have had to have a way to prevent the thermite from igniting from the crash and resulting fire and all of it would have to have been installed without anyone noticing. It would have been far more sensible for them just to use the plane collisions and the jet fuel fires to weaken the structure enough to collapse. Oh wait, that's what happened.

basketcase · Sep 20, 2016

Jubee said:
Thermite put in an enclosure to protect it from igniting it?

Massive fires not igniting it? Again, a military grade enclosure or way to protect the thermite until required to ignite. ....

Yep, none of the office workers would have noticed that.

and in turn melt steel?

This has to be one of the craziest and anti-science claims that the conspiracy theorists keep trying. Structural steel loses tensile strength as it heats. I even posted a study that shows that by the temperatures from a jet fuel fire, the steel would have had its strength reduced by over 90%. But sure, don't bother with actual science when youtube videos will do!

Jubee · Sep 20, 2016

fuji said:
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/296/199/9ff.gif

You have gone off the deep end.

Nothing to say about building #7 in that clip and how the other building didn't collapse?
How about the eye/ear witness accounts of the firefighters hearing explosions? Not good enough for you, doesn't fit your narrative?
What about NIST having to change their tune once those who questioned the explanation with actual science? lol

It's pretty scary when a government body changes its own theory as to what happened. So now you still have too many unsolved questions with the government and media in one corner who have the podium and stage and control the whole show and where things get focused.
In the other corner, you have people asking tough questions which aren't being answered as well as being ignored.

More "eye witness" reports by actual firemen at the site.

Jubee · Sep 20, 2016

basketcase said:
Yep, none of the office workers would have noticed that.

Unless they're not busy working all day? However, nothing a "night crew" or a group of guys working in the elevator shafts for "repairs" couldn't rig up. Anything is possible.
Wasn't there an asbestos issue with the towers prior to this day? I'll have to look this up later.

This has to be one of the craziest and anti-science claims that the conspiracy theorists keep trying. Structural steel loses tensile strength as it heats. I even posted a study that shows that by the temperatures from a jet fuel fire, the steel would have had its strength reduced by over 90%. But sure, don't bother with actual science when youtube videos will do!

Yes, but office furniture, equipment and papers would not aid in any fire getting to those temps. Jet fuel is highly combustible and it was gone in literally a flash.
Why do you label it as "youtube" videos? I mean, it's not content created by google or youtube, they're recordings of people filming themselves on camera or in this case, recordings of things that happened that day.

I guess NBC/ABC/CBS/FOX (did I leave anyone out) are all okay then? Let's not forget the magazines that are more likely than not probably owned by the same corporations that own and run the networks.

fuji · Sep 20, 2016

Jubee said:
Nothing to say about building #7 in that clip and how the other building didn't collapse?
How about the eye/ear witness accounts of the firefighters hearing explosions?

Have you ever seen a building burning? There are lots of explosions. The building collapsed because it burned. It was visibly deforming before the collapse and the failure of the structure was predicted by all the firefighters present who saw it buckling.

Given that all your other "theories" until now have been laughed off stage, what makes you think you can just keep making stuff up?

I suggest you read the NIST report if you want to learn what happened and stop believing everything you see in YouTube.

Jubee · Sep 20, 2016

They haven't been laughed off stage, I don't consider you my sole audience, this is a public forum.
Laughed off? Hardly.

NIST report, joke.
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...rt-on-the-world-trade-center-towers-is-false/

NIST denies molten theories and claims he never heard anyone say otherwise. Looks pretty dry mouthed and twitchy if you ask me.

Still pushing aside the firefighters and what they heard as being nothing? Just cast them off, nothing to see here right?

What about the building that next got hit by fires and debris, was closer to WTC 1 AND 2 and still managed to surivive, all the while, it was a bit closer to the two buildings as opposed to wtc 7.
Nothing on that?
Not surprised, I understand. Hard to refute without taking a hit on your image.

ZenSouljah · Sep 21, 2016

I've used Thermite, no way in hell was any used in that building collapse.

Frankfooter · Sep 21, 2016

ZenSouljah said:
I've used Thermite, no way in hell was any used in that building collapse.

Why, how do buildings collapse when you use thermite?

fuji · Sep 21, 2016

"Oh all my YouTube videos were refuted? No problem, I can spam another."

You aren't an authority on which YouTube videos we should watch, as none of the ones you've picked so far were even remotely plausible.

When your first several attempts were refuted you lost the YouTube debate and spamming more of them isn't going to help you.

Stuff blows up when a building is on fire, nobody is discounting what people heard. But also that "theory" doesn't make any sense either. Your claim is there was thermite on the 77th floor. No one would have heard shit at ground level. Whatever they heard wasn't 77 floors up! So whatever it was they heard, it's not your military grade container full of thermite.

As for WTC1 and WTC2 there's no reason whatsoever to think they should have collapsed so that's just a dumb argument. Lots of buildings don't collapse. Duh.

I note that you keep trying to switch to criticizing NIST when you have not even established a credible theory of your own. You maybe think it's fun throwing random accusations but you can't do the heavy lifting: to have an argument you need an alternate theory that is better, and your theory just sucks.

basketcase · Sep 21, 2016

Jubee said:
Unless they're not busy working all day? However, nothing a "night crew" or a group of guys working in the elevator shafts for "repairs" couldn't rig up. Anything is possible.
Wasn't there an asbestos issue with the towers prior to this day? I'll have to look this up later.

Already addressed. The exterior of the building carried much of the buildings load. They would have had to thermite the exterior and that would have been obvious to anyone looking at the windows or would have required ripping up the floors to install. The claims are that the thermite was ignited log after the planes impacted but the impact and fires would have ignited them early.

Yes, but office furniture, equipment and papers would not aid in any fire getting to those temps. Jet fuel is highly combustible and it was gone in literally a flash.

I posted a actual scientific study on tensile characteristics of structural steel at temperatures. At even a few hundred degrees structural steel loses a significant amount of strength. Considering the added loads that the damage from the planes shifted to the remaining structure there is no way the weakened steel could have even supported its own weight let alone the load from the floors above.

Remembering 9/11

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Banned from schools.....

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

New member

dangling member

Banned

Well-known member