9/11 consipracy movie

[noto12ious]

Not really, it barely scratches the surface as to all of Griffin's arguments, and just proposes alternate theories. It doesn't mention a lot of the arguments, ie NORAD standing down, or the illegal removal of debris from WTC, or the pre collapse explosions heard by all firefighters, police crews, the list goes on and on Anyhow, more exposure to people who would not have heard otherwise is always a plus :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
im done. until you refute MY post i will not say ONE thing in this thread again

Looks like you owned yourself again... since you ARE posting in this thread again... (I already addressed your Pentagon post many days ago). haha.

 

[MikeMike]

you have been called out on this before.

if the article does not specify YOUR view point you IGNORE it. i have now posted 3 links, yes ONLY 3, and the 3 of them combined basically negate your ENTIRE conspiracy theory.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
you have been called out on this before.

if the article does not specify YOUR view point you IGNORE it. i have now posted 3 links, yes ONLY 3, and the 3 of them combined basically negate your ENTIRE conspiracy theory.

You're one to call someone out...you made yourself look like a total fool by threatening to leave this thread...yet you were mistaken as to the reasons given, and now you're back :laugh:

3 links that negate "my" conspiracy theory? First, it's not mine. Second, none of the articles you've linked have negated anything whatsoever (especially Norman Mineta, or the molten steel, or NORAD standing down, or War game exercises on 9/11 used to divert and confuse our great Airforce pilots, or pre collapse detonation explosions, or Presidential order w199i, or the CIA money trail, or the Able Danger coverup, etc, etc)

The "skeptic" article hardly negated anything. We could spend the entire day arguing over its contents (and I'm not going to, you can waste your time, however). The authors were clueless enough to ask something so simple as "Griffin actually does claim that No. 7 WTC, which collapsed at 5:20 pm, was blown up by explosives, and this is taken as proof that Washington was behind it. But what would the motive be?"

They obviously haven't even looked into the the contents of WTC7 (which answers the motive question), or watched 9/11 Eyewitness where pre collapse explosions of WTC7 are clearly audible The list goes on and on. Thanks for exposing more people to the 9/11 Conspiracy, though :thumbsup:

 

[noto12ious]

Interesting...

United States Congressman Curt Weldon (who slammed the 9/11 Commission regarding the Able Danger coverup) is also looking into WTC explosions on 9/11:

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9302&page=1&pp=10


Partial transcript:

Dave Slesinger: First, I want to praise you for your Able Danger efforts. Since you are the Congressman most sympathetic to firefighters, have you looked at the quotes from NYC firefighters at the World Trade Center on 9/11 about explosives. If you have, will you accept information on for later comment.

Rep. Weldon: I will absolutely accept information, and I'm very close to the NYC firefighters because one of my best friends was killed there. You see I go on all of the disasters because of my leadership on fire and (inaudible) issues, I've been to all of them. Hurricane Andrew, Hugo, I was in Katrina two days after it happened, in fact,...

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: noto12ious
Nice, the skeptic article actually raises more questions that the Commission should've answered... and exposes the material to a wider audience. Awesome

uh no? it completely negates 75-80% of what you have posted, and thus shows MANY MANY more flaws if your view points. right now im up to 85-90% of your views that have been negated.

notorious probably thinks that every day the sun rises raises more questions whether the sun will rise again tomorrow cuz u know..the 12 foot tall lizard beings may just snuff out the sun once they get tired of running the world behind the scenes. and every scientific experiment that confirms a theory only raises more questions to whether we are just really living in the matrix

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: noto12ious
Nice, the skeptic article actually raises more questions that the Commission should've answered... and exposes the material to a wider audience. Awesome

uh no? it completely negates 75-80% of what you have posted, and thus shows MANY MANY more flaws if your view points. right now im up to 85-90% of your views that have been negated.

Your article is asinine, all it does it try to discredit one man?s theory of what happened, much of which I do not agree with (planes being flown by remote control and such). Go ahead and make a list of the points you say it negates, I?m a work and don?t have time to pick apart this silly little article written by some nobody (you want to discredit the articles we throw at you, we?ll do the same). He provides NO scientific proof of anything, only theories and assumptions himself. He doesn't even touch on NORAD standing down, the put options made on the day's before that were 11x more then the average amount, and all the black boxes being destoryed beyond repair. Try again Mike.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: noto12ious
Nice, the skeptic article actually raises more questions that the Commission should've answered... and exposes the material to a wider audience. Awesome

uh no? it completely negates 75-80% of what you have posted, and thus shows MANY MANY more flaws if your view points. right now im up to 85-90% of your views that have been negated.

Your article is asinine, all it does it try to discredit one man?s theory of what happened, much of which I do not agree with (planes being flown by remote control and such). Go ahead and make a list of the points you say it negates, I?m a work and don?t have time to pick apart this silly little article written by some nobody (you want to discredit the articles we throw at you, we?ll do the same). He provides NO scientific proof of anything, only theories and assumptions himself. He doesn't even touch on NORAD standing down, the put options made on the day's before that were 11x more then the average amount, and all the black boxes being destoryed beyond repair. Try again Mike.

you guys are fvcking retarded tinfoil needing idiots, that is all.

i will personally paypal each of you $500 the day they PROVE beyond a SHADOW OF A DOUBT, IN COURT that it was an inside job.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: noto12ious
Nice, the skeptic article actually raises more questions that the Commission should've answered... and exposes the material to a wider audience. Awesome

uh no? it completely negates 75-80% of what you have posted, and thus shows MANY MANY more flaws if your view points. right now im up to 85-90% of your views that have been negated.

Your article is asinine, all it does it try to discredit one man?s theory of what happened, much of which I do not agree with (planes being flown by remote control and such). Go ahead and make a list of the points you say it negates, I?m a work and don?t have time to pick apart this silly little article written by some nobody (you want to discredit the articles we throw at you, we?ll do the same). He provides NO scientific proof of anything, only theories and assumptions himself. He doesn't even touch on NORAD standing down, the put options made on the day's before that were 11x more then the average amount, and all the black boxes being destoryed beyond repair. Try again Mike.

you guys are fvcking retarded tinfoil needing idiots, that is all.

i will personally paypal each of you $500 the day they PROVE beyond a SHADOW OF A DOUBT, IN COURT that it was an inside job.

First we need a new independent investigation. IF that happens, they'll investigate these matters (Norman Mineta, NORAD standing down, war game exercises on 9/11 used to divert and confuse our great Airforce pilots, pre collapse detonation explosions at WTC1, WTC2, WTC7, Presidential Order W199i, the CIA money trail, Able Danger coverup, etc ,etc)....and Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the criminals will be convicted with the death penalty for treason against the United States of America

Oh yeah, then you can pay me that $500.

Interesting..looks like Libby dropped another bombshell today :laugh:

 

[Canun]

Ummm...Wow. I shouldn't be commenting on this, but I'm bored.

Do any of you happen to have your structural engineering degree? I worked for an engineer when the attack happened on 9/11. He stated 20 mins in that the towers going to collapse. Why? The design of the building was basically a tube with a small center structure of beams. When the planes hit they burned heated the steel in the beams to the point that their strength gave out. They did not melt, but the strength of the metal was severely comprimised. The floors were supported by this middle support which grew weak. At that point, the only item holding the floors together were the attachments to the exterior shell. Those could not handle the weight with the beams buckling. Then it turns into physics. The PE of the mass of concrete was changed into KE and pancaked. My boss went over it in the office since he is a certified Professional Eng. in like 25 states including NY.

Like I said, I shouldn't have commented, just thought this was a funny thread.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Canun
Ummm...Wow. I shouldn't be commenting on this, but I'm bored.

Do any of you happen to have your structural engineering degree? I worked for an engineer when the attack happened on 9/11. He stated 20 mins in that the towers going to collapse. Why? The design of the building was basically a tube with a small center structure of beams. When the planes hit they burned heated the steel in the beams to the point that their strength gave out. They did not melt, but the strength of the metal was severely comprimised. The floors were supported by this middle support which grew weak. At that point, the only item holding the floors together were the attachments to the exterior shell. Those could not handle the weight with the beams buckling. Then it turns into physics. The PE of the mass of concrete was changed into KE and pancaked. My boss went over it in the office since he is a certified Professional Eng. in like 25 states including NY.

Like I said, I shouldn't have commented, just thought this was a funny thread.

Interesting... I guess reports of explosions in the basements levels seconds before the planes struck (National Hero William Rodriguez) had nothing to do with the collapse. I guess the pre collapse detonations of WTC1, 2, 7 caught on film also had nothing to do with their collapses ... the first 3 steel skyscrapers in the history of the world to do so! No wonder the 911 Commission ignored all of our hero fire fighters.

Edit: "small center structure?" You mean center structure with 47 massive columns

Gee, somebody tell me what that bright orange / red flash is coming out of that window!
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem4/1696-01.jpg

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: Canun
Ummm...Wow. I shouldn't be commenting on this, but I'm bored.

Do any of you happen to have your structural engineering degree? I worked for an engineer when the attack happened on 9/11. He stated 20 mins in that the towers going to collapse. Why? The design of the building was basically a tube with a small center structure of beams. When the planes hit they burned heated the steel in the beams to the point that their strength gave out. They did not melt, but the strength of the metal was severely comprimised. The floors were supported by this middle support which grew weak. At that point, the only item holding the floors together were the attachments to the exterior shell. Those could not handle the weight with the beams buckling. Then it turns into physics. The PE of the mass of concrete was changed into KE and pancaked. My boss went over it in the office since he is a certified Professional Eng. in like 25 states including NY.

Like I said, I shouldn't have commented, just thought this was a funny thread.

Nice, your boss should do the math and enter the million dollar contest then, since he's such an expert.

Let's all hope the Venezuelan government follows through with their investigation. Then we'll get Dick and Bush in a public trial on C-SPAN for the whole country to see and decide for themselves.

 

[Canun]

Per the picture you noted, compression of air from the collapsing of the building. As the floors compacted, the air pressure was increase and forced outwards and downwards. Additionally, wouldn't there be many more examples of these "plumes" if it were a controlled detonation?

Like I said, I'm not a structural engineer, but I did have a long discussion with my boss who was one. I just see this as an example of people wanting to believe something to the exclusion of logic.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Canun
Per the picture you noted, compression of air from the collapsing of the building. As the floors compacted, the air pressure was increase and forced outwards and downwards. Additionally, wouldn't there be many more examples of these "plumes" if it were a controlled detonation?

Like I said, I'm not a structural engineer, but I did have a long discussion with my boss who was one. I just see this as an example of people wanting to believe something to the exclusion of logic.

I guess that means you haven't watched the main film mentioned by the OP.
More plumes?

orange / red flash where the window is:
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem4/1696-01.jpg

more plumes:
http://usera.imagecave.com/BoneZ/911-2.jpg

Notice 2 plumes...the lowest one appears first, the higher one appears later (as seen in LC2E). So much for the air compression theory.
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem12/demolition.wave.170.jpg

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
wait wait, im not addressing it?

you are trying to ignore MY original post with facts that NEGATE that.

do that then i wont ignore your trolling links.

how many frickin bookmarks do you need before you try and do your OWN investigation with ideas that arent written down and handed to you?

Hes mentally retarded. Stop trying..

LOL at this thread continuing to live.

 

[Canun]

Once again, if it were a controlled detonation, you would see more of these plumes, such as your own example picture shows. Additionally, look at the status of the structures in the controlled detonation, and at what state the WTC was in. It was already collapsing.

So logically speaking, which is more realistic?

A. The government either preplanted explosives or just after the crashes planted them to make sure the building came down?

B. The collapse of the building caused the air pressue to spike in the building forcing the air and flames out and downward into the structure.

My opinion, B is much more plausible. But that is my opinion.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Hes mentally retarded. Stop trying..

LOL at this thread continuing to live.

This coming from Acanthus, who spent days trying to deny pre collapse explosions... then finally admitted there actually were explosions (in his own words: "I'll bite") :laugh:

Funny how he disappeared from the thread.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Canun
Ummm...Wow. I shouldn't be commenting on this, but I'm bored.

Do any of you happen to have your structural engineering degree? I worked for an engineer when the attack happened on 9/11. He stated 20 mins in that the towers going to collapse. Why? The design of the building was basically a tube with a small center structure of beams. When the planes hit they burned heated the steel in the beams to the point that their strength gave out. They did not melt, but the strength of the metal was severely comprimised. The floors were supported by this middle support which grew weak. At that point, the only item holding the floors together were the attachments to the exterior shell. Those could not handle the weight with the beams buckling. Then it turns into physics. The PE of the mass of concrete was changed into KE and pancaked. My boss went over it in the office since he is a certified Professional Eng. in like 25 states including NY.

Like I said, I shouldn't have commented, just thought this was a funny thread.

Interesting... I guess reports of explosions in the basements levels seconds before the planes struck (National Hero William Rodriguez) had nothing to do with the collapse. I guess the pre collapse detonations of WTC1, 2, 7 caught on film also had nothing to do with their collapses ... the first 3 steel skyscrapers in the history of the world to do so! No wonder the 911 Commission ignored all of our hero fire fighters.

Edit: "small center structure?" You mean center structure with 47 massive columns

Gee, somebody tell me what that bright orange / red flash is coming out of that window!
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem4/1696-01.jpg

We did, you ignored the answers, troll.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Hes mentally retarded. Stop trying..

LOL at this thread continuing to live.

This coming from Acanthus, who spent days trying to deny pre collapse explosions... then finally admitted there actually were explosions (in his own words: "I'll bite") :laugh:

Funny how he disappeared from the thread.

Pull it up, quote me, and dont cut anything like a one sided retard.

Ill give you credit for one thing, you always manage to make yourself look stupider despite the exponentially greater challenge each time.

Repeat yourself a few more times on the same issues that have been refuted over and over.

Wanna go back to molten steel?

You said everything... 12 times... and its been refuted... you cant be this stupid, no one can.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Canun
Once again, if it were a controlled detonation, you would see more of these plumes, such as your own example picture shows. Additionally, look at the status of the structures in the controlled detonation, and at what state the WTC was in. It was already collapsing.

So logically speaking, which is more realistic?

A. The government either preplanted explosives or just after the crashes planted them to make sure the building came down?

B. The collapse of the building caused the air pressue to spike in the building forcing the air and flames out and downward into the structure.

My opinion, B is much more plausible. But that is my opinion.

Oh well, in order to to believe that, you're going to have to ignore explosions in the basement before the planes struck, and the numerous other detonations minutes / seconds before any collapses started ... same exact deal with WTC 7.

There are actually quite a few plumes I haven't listed...it's in the original video. Again, 47 massive central columns... you won't see every single squib due to the locations of the columns, but there are quite a few

You're also going to have to ignore many corroborating fire fighter accounts of lower level detonation flashes seconds before the "collapses" began.

Fire Fighter Captain Karin Deshore, Battalion 46:

Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, both going up and down and then all around the building


Stephen Gregory of the Bureau of Communications:

"I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down."

 

[Canun]

So logic isn't playing any part in your answer. Demolition explotions tend not to start at the bottom of a structure due to the instability it causes in keeping the building where you want it to go. As I said earlier there was a massive amount of force that compressed the air down and out of the building. The central shafts for the elevators would be more than able to convey the energy to the base of the building. Plus if you notice, those explosions look like they happened after the collapse began in your photos.

Once again, logically speaking, which is more plausible?

Edit: Oh, and about the beams in the center? They were large I'll grant you that, but steel becomes extremely flexible at high temperatures, and are unable to handle heavy loads.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Hes mentally retarded. Stop trying..

LOL at this thread continuing to live.

This coming from Acanthus, who spent days trying to deny pre collapse explosions... then finally admitted there actually were explosions (in his own words: "I'll bite") :laugh:

Funny how he disappeared from the thread.

Pull it up, quote me, and dont cut anything like a one sided retard.

Ill give you credit for one thing, you always manage to make yourself look stupider despite the exponentially greater challenge each time.

Repeat yourself a few more times on the same issues that have been refuted over and over.

Wanna go back to molten steel?

You said everything... 12 times... and its been refuted... you cant be this stupid, no one can.

/shrug... too easy.

"Alright ill bite, since there were EXPLOSIONS, they didnt use THERMITE did they? becuase THERMITE doesnt EXPLODE"

Everything you've tried to come up with has been destroyed...and it's why you disappeared from the thread.
Go here to review since you've obviously forgotten: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Pull it up, quote me, and dont cut anything like a one sided retard.

Ill give you credit for one thing, you always manage to make yourself look stupider despite the exponentially greater challenge each time.

Repeat yourself a few more times on the same issues that have been refuted over and over.

Wanna go back to molten steel?

You said everything... 12 times... and its been refuted... you cant be this stupid, no one can.

Ah-ha! I have uncovered the true meaning of this post and the admission of guilt.

Basically you have just admitted that you gave the orders to "pull it", and cut anything, meaning the steel girders. You said you'll give him the challenge to take down the WTC. Repeat the cutting of the girders a few more times...over and over... and the building will return to molten steel. 12 times, because the number 12 is significant, since 9+11=12. No one can survive this.

This is definitive proof, clear enough to be acceptable by any true conspiracy theorist.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Canun
So logic isn't playing any part in your answer. Demolition explotions tend not to start at the bottom of a structure due to the instability it causes in keeping the building where you want it to go. As I said earlier there was a massive amount of force that compressed the air down and out of the building. The central shafts for the elevators would be more than able to convey the energy to the base of the building. Plus if you notice, those explosions look like they happened after the collapse began in your photos.

Once again, logically speaking, which is more plausible?

Edit: Oh, and about the beams in the center? They were large I'll grant you that, but steel becomes extremely flexible at high temperatures, and are unable to handle heavy loads.

Well, let's ask the President of Controlled Demolitions Inc.

"If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure". -- Mark Loizeaux
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm

 

[Canun]

I asked what was more logical, but you don't want to think. So guess were at an impasse.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Canun
I asked what was more logical, but you don't want to think. So guess were at an impasse.

Funny, your version of logical is ignoring demolitions experts, videos, fire fighter accounts of bombs + lower level demolition flashes.

My version is taking all of their corroborating testimonies + videos of bomb detonations and coming to the logical conclusion: bombs brought down WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. GG.