Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, hot enough said:

Actually, Omni, eyeball, Wilber, Dop, OftenWrong, ... belong to a group of the wackiest conspiracy theorists who have ever walked the planet, people who support the US government official conspiracy theory. They deny stark realities, ones that can be seen with their own eyes. Everything from 1 to 7 is verifiable by any person who still has the gift of sight.

And yet these people refuse to even look at these simple Yes/No questions, let alone answer them. Right, Rue? 

1. Do you deny that the US government developed nanothermite in the 1990s?

2. Do you deny that unreacted nanothermite particles were found in WTC dust?

3. Do you deny that the by-products of thermitic reactions were found in WTC dust, iron microspheres in volumes 1500 times greater than that of normal office dust?

4. Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel described by FEMA, pictures of which anyone can see?

5. Do you deny the molten and fused steel and concrete, one named the Meteorite and housed in a 911 museum? 

6. Do you deny the molten handguns found and stored in a 911 museum?

7. Do you deny that John Gross [and others] of NIST lied about the molten/vaporized steel, the explosions, the bombs reported, WTC7 free fall, the shear studs, the composite floors, the ...?

Notwithstanding question 7 my answer is no to all of the rest.

What I do deny is the conclusion that these are the result of a controlled explosion staged by government. Why?

1. The absence of any whistleblowers bearing evidence of this conspiracy, which would be vast given the scope of the project. 

2. The absence of signs of a controlled explosion i.e. primer cord.

3. Occam's Razor.

It would be a lot easier for a small handful of people to salt the evidence with the things you mention than the workforce it would take to pull off the conspiracy you've outlined.

You keep saying you don't actually know how all your evidence got into the debris - simply that it's there. You don't have a smoking gun just smoke.

As for the NIST...they seem as flummoxed as you when it comes to proving how the evidence got into the debris.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

Notwithstanding question 7 my answer is no to all of the rest.

What I do deny is the conclusion that these are the result of a controlled explosion staged by government. Why?

1. The absence of any whistleblowers bearing evidence of this conspiracy, which would be vast given the scope of the project. 

2. The absence of signs of a controlled explosion i.e. primer cord.

3. Occam's Razor.

It would be a lot easier for a small handful of people to salt the evidence with the things you mention than the workforce it would take to pull off the conspiracy you've outlined.

You keep saying you don't actually know how all your evidence got into the debris - simply that it's there. You don't have a smoking gun just smoke.

As for the NIST...they seem as flummoxed as you when it comes to proving how the evidence got into the debris.

So, the sounds of explosives going off in the basement of the towers were all just a figment of the imagination of the firemen that were on the scene at the time? I am pretty sure that the firemen know the sounds of explosives going off. Of course you would probably believe the official story that it was probably a crate of cookies being crushed by the weight of the building, and that sound was heard over some loudspeaker, eh?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did this man get to interview Bin Laden when the CIA could not find him? What does Bergen know that the CIA does not? Again showing the Saudi connection to the whole thing .. but then there is the bit with the Dancing Isreali's  and the intelligence gathering Israel performed in the US the couple years leading up to the attacks... 

 

Bin laden to me was nothing more than a possibly unwitting propaganda tool for the US to justify invasions of other nations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2017 at 10:32 AM, GostHacked said:

Bin laden to me was nothing more than a possibly unwitting propaganda tool for the US to justify invasions of other nations.

You do know that the US and UK governments lied lied lied and lied again about OBL being responsible for 911, right? And they never provide one shred of evidence to back their lies even after promising they would. 

You also know that the FBI never had 911 on OBL's Most Wanted Poster, because, they said, they had no proof of his being involved, right? He wasn't involved and neither were the 19 Arab hijackers. 

The number of lies the US government has told, the number of lies NIST has told, the number of lies the 911 Commission has told and they are still gullible folks who believe this utter nonsense. 

Here is an excellent short video that lays out perfectly just how terribly lame the US government official conspiracy theory is. People have to be awfully ignorant and willfully blind to believe the USGOCT!

Jonathan Cole - 9/11 Experiments: Eliminate the Impossible 

Right there in the above picture, the severely eroded, molten, vaporized piece of 911 steel. The existence of said steel is in and of itself proof positive that the US government official conspiracy theory is bunko, bogus, pure bullshyte!

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2017 at 1:20 AM, Omni said:

Is there any conspiracy theory you have a reason to doubt, because that would likely be the same reason I doubt you.

You make no sense, Omni. This isn't about me and it is testament to your abysmally weak anti-science position that you try to make it about me. 

The US government official conspiracy theory is one that any sane individual would not/could not believe in a million years, unless they deny reality.

This same US government official conspiracy theory is so wacky, so outlandish, so cockamamie, so phantasmagorical and it has no science/zero science supporting it. There is a whole thread just for providing evidence for the US government official conspiracy theory and none has ever been provided.

Only those who deny science support it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2017 at 0:12 PM, eyeball said:
Quote

Notwithstanding question 7 my answer is no to all of the rest.

How do believe all those totally impossible things occurred?

Quote

 

What I do deny is the conclusion that these are the result of a controlled explosion staged by government. Why?

1. The absence of any whistleblowers bearing evidence of this conspiracy, which would be vast given the scope of the project. 

2. The absence of signs of a controlled explosion i.e. primer cord.

3. Occam's Razor.

It would be a lot easier for a small handful of people to salt the evidence with the things you mention than the workforce it would take to pull off the conspiracy you've outlined.

 

Occam's razor sinks your contention. How could enough nanothermite going off to create all the molten/vaporized steel, all the pulverized concrete, the complete destruction of two 110 storey towers and one 47 storey tower, all the molten molybdenum, all the vaporized lead, all the 6% of WTC dust being intricately mixed with iron microspheres - the VERY by product of these nanothermite reactions, the sulfidation of the eutectic steel, ... all be done by "a small handful of people" salting the evidence?

How did they get molten steel deep in the rubble piles, some found in Februrary 2002?

I don't think you know what all these things listed above mean for your suggestion, and I don't mean to be unkind, is incredibly ludicrous.

 

Quote

You keep saying you don't actually know how all your evidence got into the debris - simply that it's there.

I have never said that. No one knows how or even what amounts of nanothermite was needed to blow up the towers. Science only says that controlled demolition is the only possible way that the towers could have come down as they did. 

The world's largest elevator retrofit ever went on at WTC before and right up to 911. Read on.

ACE Elevator Company
9/11 Questions and Research

How could explosives be planted in the WTC?

 

Workers had access to unoccupied areas by day, and in occupied areas by night, and on week ends.  Workers from the A.C.E. Elevator Company in the WTC elevator shafts from 1994 until 9/11/2001 were not even mentioned in the final reports.  Neither was LVI Services, working on the asbestos removal project.  Nor were the fireproofing workers.  (See video)

The words "Ace elevator" or "A.C.E." (herein ACE) are not found anywhere in the PDF files of the 9/11 Commission or NIST reports, although "elevator" appears multiple times. You can check this out for yourself. The names of the security company, "Securacom" (renamed "Stratesec" after 9/11), are not found either.   If the security company cannot be trusted, than there are many ways the explosives could be brought in.  The building owner is also key.  The landlord, Larry Silverstein is only mentioned in the WTC 7 report, as a contributor. http://911Experiments.com/reports.

http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/AceElevator/

 

Quote

As for the NIST...they seem as flummoxed as you when it comes to proving how the evidence got into the debris.

NIST is not flummoxed, they just flat out lied about all these things, categorically denying these myriad things that DO exist. 

Quote

You don't have a smoking gun just smoke.

There are myriad smoking guns/complete impossibilities that SINK the US government official conspiracy theory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

But you're the one spouting the conspiracy theories, which most of us have long ago realized were phony. But keep trying, I guess, if you got nothing better to do.

You're not worth talking to because you are an anti-science, truths "put right in front of your face" denying/ignoring, you are even a god awful, terrible propagandist. 

There is so much science put forward and you and your cohorts ignore it all and write crap like the crap you have written above.

You know the US government conspiracy theory is bogus and we know you know that because you never ever provide any evidence to support it nor have you ever provided any evidence to support any of your ludicrous notions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

You're not worth talking to because you are an anti-science, truths "put right in front of your face" denying/ignoring, you are even a god awful, terrible propagandist. 

There is so much science put forward and you and your cohorts ignore it all and write crap like the crap you have written above.

You know the US government conspiracy theory is bogus and we know you know that because you never ever provide any evidence to support it nor have you ever provided any evidence to support any of your ludicrous notions. 

I accept your surrender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NIST followed a paper that was put out by Zdenek Bazant on September 13, 2001, two days after the collapse. This is the very antithesis of science. This ludicrous Crush Down/Crush Up theory, which is the sole basis for the US government official conspiracy theory goes against all of Newton's Laws of Motion.

It describes a DOWN AND OUT motion that is not possible in a gravity collapse. Gravity collapses do not eject multi-ton sections of steel 300 yards laterally. 

 

Feynman Chaser - The Key to Science

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

For those intellectual cowards who are too chicken to watch the video, 

Richard Feynman: "If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it."

NIST failed to perform all the crucial experiments they were encouraged to perform by scientists on both sides of the story. That is the antithesis of science, as Professor Feynman brilliantly but simply explains above. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

Is this a willful lie or simply your usual ignorance on the events of 911, Omni?

 

To all the US government conspiracy theory supporters. 

Are these firemen lying about secondary explosions? Why is the blond fireman's face all bloody?

Are all the other police, eye witnesses lying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Gross and NIST lied about the molten steel seen flowing out of WTC2 minutes before it was blown up. NIST advanced a cockamamie unscientific idea, they were, again, asked to do a simple experiment [the foundation of science] by many scientists to back their notion and they failed to perform any experiment. NIST did this a number of times because they knew that any experiments would show their science was garbage.

The science deniers here at MLW know this. That can only mean more lies. These science deniers are denying the picture they saw, in this thread, of John Gross touching the end of a previously molten/vaporized steel beam/column. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Gross and NIST lied about the molten steel seen flowing out of WTC2 minutes before it was blown up.

It's bad enough to relentlessly troll, which is against MLW rules; it's another thing altogether to wantonly lie.

======================================================

 

burning2-webFigure 3. A thermite reaction generates yellow-white hot molten iron at well over 2500°C/4000°F and white smoke. This type of material can melt and cut steel beams.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) did document the flow of molten metal pouring out of the South Tower during the final seven minutes before its collapse, noting the accompanying "unusual bright flame" and "plume of white smoke." However, NIST failed to investigate the phenomenon, dismissing it as molten aluminum from the crashed jet, which melts at only 660°C/1220°F.

NIST's hypothesis may seem plausible at first. But Dr. Steven Jones demonstrates in his 2006 paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" that the official government hypothesis is untested and implausible.

Dr. Jones' paper reveals that the initial bright yellow-white glow of the expelled liquid was consistent with a glowing stream of molten iron from "a nearby thermite reaction zone," and the expected white smoke (aluminum oxide off-gassing) supports that conclusion. NIST must rely on its claim of molten aluminum in order to validate its official fire-based explanation, because office fires cannot generate the extreme temperature required to melt steel or iron. The fundamental flaw of the aluminum hypothesis, though, is that the implied temperature of the white glow remains above 1200°C/2200°F, regardless of the metal involved. An independent researcher suggested that the molten substance could be lead from storage batteries, but this explanation fails — as do all hypotheses based on alternative metals — because the temperature required for the yellow-white glow of the metal is beyond the capability of the building fire.

pouring-webFigure 4. Molten aluminum appears silvery when poured in daylight conditions

Dr. Jones also notes that molten aluminum appears silvery as it melts at 660°C/1220°F, and that it remains silvery when poured in daylight conditions, regardless of the temperature. It is theoretically possible to continue heating liquid aluminum way past its melting point and into the yellow-white temperature range, but the office fire was not a plausible source for such high temperatures, and there was no crucible to contain liquid aluminum for continued heating. Put another way, even if the building fire could have somehow provided the needed temperature for the yellow-white glow, the unrestrained aluminum would have melted and trickled away before it could achieve such a temperature. This problem also rules out other proposed alternative metals — lead, for example — which have similarly low melting points.

Finally, Dr. Jones adds that even if liquid aluminum could have been restrained long enough to make it glow white, it would still have appeared silvery within the first two meters of falling through the air in daylight conditions, due to its high reflectivity and low emissivity.

falling-webFigure 5. The liquid metal cannot be aluminum, for it remains orange-yellow, despite falling several hundred feet in broad daylight.

NIST states that aluminum "can display an orange glow" if blended with organic materials, but Dr. Jones has experimentally invalidated this theory by demonstrating that organics and molten aluminum do not mix.Thus, the liquid metal seen pouring out of the South Tower could not have been aluminum, since it remains yellow in broad daylight, despite falling several hundred feet through the air.

NIST tries to circumvent this problem with the untested proposition that the observed glow could be due to the mixing of aluminum with combustible organic materials from the building's interior. But Dr. Jones has actually performed the experiments that soundly refute NIST's hypothesis. As he puts it, "This is a key to understanding why the aluminum does not 'glow orange' due to partially-burned organics 'mixed' in (per NIST theory), because they do notmix in! My colleague noted that, just like oil and water, organics and molten aluminum do not mix. The hydrocarbons float to the top, and there burn — and embers glow, yes, but just in spots. The organics clearly do not impart to the hot liquid aluminum an 'orange glow' when it falls, when you actually do the experiment!"

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affiliate-marketing-program/899-what-was-the-molten-metal-seen-pouring-out-of-the-south-tower-minutes-before-its-collapse-steel-and-iron-or-aluminum-andor-lead.html

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This molten steel seen flowing out of WTC2 minutes before it was blown up is another of the myriad impossibilities found within the totally crazy US government official conspiracy theory. 

Still not a shred of evidence has been provided to support the US government official conspiracy theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, hot enough said:

There are myriad smoking guns/complete impossibilities that SINK the US government official conspiracy theory. 

Perhaps a few guilt-ridden whistle-blowers would go a long way towards opening up your theory to more scrutiny. Shouldn't be hard to come up with you would think. Exactly how many workers were involved anyway and what are the odds that not one of them will ever come forward...with a smoking gun. 

Quote

 

Workers had access to unoccupied areas by day, and in occupied areas by night, and on week ends.  Workers from the A.C.E. Elevator Company in the WTC elevator shafts from 1994 until 9/11/2001 were not even mentioned in the final reports.  Neither was LVI Services, working on the asbestos removal project.  Nor were the fireproofing workers

 

What do these workers feel about the validity of your theory?  Have any expressed any opinion on how it effectively accuses them of mass murder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...