Was 9/11 A Hoax?

[Cylinder]

Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

UL certifies molten steel as support members in occupied structures? Wow. I did not know that.

What these "distinguished experts" miss is what any blacksmith can tell you. Somewhere quite short of its liquid phase, there exists a happy point (for the blacksmith at least) at which steel becomes more easily malleable while retaining the ability to hold its own shape.

 

[LostAngeles]

Also, it occurred to me last night about the guy who says debris from Flight 93 should have only covered a city block...

Are we certain he knows his ◊◊◊◊?

 

[rikzilla]

In another thread, I remarked that, at the time I saw the towers collapse, it seemed odd how that all happened by fire alone in the span of two hours. Now a group of people are taking the issue of a hoax very seriously, and they aren't conspiracy theorists either: Click

Any thoughts?

Yeah...my thought is that if you're "skeptical" about the collapse of the WTC and you feel the need to state plainly that you "aren't conspiracy theorists" then my considered opinion is that you're not a skeptic and you likely are a conspiracy theorist.

Those who label themselves "skeptics" while promoting nonsense are the most pernicious woos out there!

-z

 

[SirPhilip]

To be frank, seeing as you are not a structural engineer who has studied the construction of the towers closely whilst combining that with your detailed knowledge of aircraft physics and fire forensics......why attach much relevance to the feeling that the collapse was "odd"?

Only because a commercial airliner laden with fuel slammed into it, and it then fell like a controlled demolition. It's entirely possible it was a cooincidence, but if history teaches us anything, it's that anyone in power must be held to a high degree of scrutiny. I'm a card-carrying conservative Republican who voted for Bush's second term by the way, so it's definitely not something I want to think.

Fetzer is in fact one of the USA's best known conspiracy theorists.

My bad. I Googled his name, he indeed has got a lot of flak for questionable statements. One conspiracy theorist...

 

[Mycroft]

Only because a commercial airliner laden with fuel slammed into it, and it then fell like a controlled demolition. It's entirely possible it was a cooincidence, but if history teaches us anything, it's that anyone in power must be held to a high degree of scrutiny. I'm a card-carrying conservative Republican who voted for Bush's second term by the way, so it's definitely not something I want to think.

My bad. I Googled his name, he indeed has got a lot of flak for questionable statements. One conspiracy theorist...

The buildings were not in power such that they must be held in a high degree of scrutiny.

 

[Ed]

Only because a commercial airliner laden with fuel slammed into it, and it then fell like a controlled demolition. It's entirely possible it was a cooincidence, but if history teaches us anything, it's that anyone in power must be held to a high degree of scrutiny. I'm a card-carrying conservative Republican who voted for Bush's second term by the way, so it's definitely not something I want to think.

Do us all a favor. Google "controlled demolition", find a site from the companies that do it for a living, read how it is done and then come back.

 

[Cleon]

Yeah...my thought is that if you're "skeptical" about the collapse of the WTC and you feel the need to state plainly that you "aren't conspiracy theorists" then my considered opinion is that you're not a skeptic and you likely are a conspiracy theorist.

Those who label themselves "skeptics" while promoting nonsense are the most pernicious woos out there!

And you can bet a sizeable chunk of change that they use phrases like "True Skeptics" to describe themselves, and "pseudo-skeptics" to describe people who don't fall for their crap.

 

[Cleon]

Do us all a favor. Google "controlled demolition", find a site from the companies that do it for a living, read how it is done and then come back.

You'd think that, out of everybody in the WTC, at least one person would notice the guys carefully planting explosives at various places. And maybe, I dunno, say something about it?

"Hey, Bob, what's that guy doing with those explosives?"

 

[SirPhilip]

Um. By definition, doesn't that mean that they are, in fact, consipiracy theorists?

The article lists them as "distinguished experts and scholars", so you can forgive me for making that impulsive distinction. A conspiracy theorist, in my view, is someone who panders sensationalism as nonfiction for a living. With the mounting distrust of the Bush administration, people are becoming increasingly more suspicious of Bush's character. A major anti-Bush sentiment is his supposed "blood for oil" motive. Assuming this was actually the motivation, or something equally amoral, it is hardly a stretch that he'd be in on a staged attack that killed 3000 other Americans. That's my take on it anyway. I sincerely hope that Bush isn't a monster, but psychopaths gravitate to positions of power and history is filled with them in politics.

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

The connection between Saddam and 9/11 was a hoax.

 

[DavidJames]

The article lists them as "distinguished experts and scholars", so you can forgive me for making that impulsive distinction. A conspiracy theorist, in my view, is someone who panders sensationalism as nonfiction for a living. With the mounting distrust of the Bush administration, people are becoming increasingly more suspicious of Bush's character. A major anti-Bush sentiment is his supposed "blood for oil" motive. Assuming this was actually the motivation, or something equally amoral, it is hardly a stretch that he'd be in on a staged attack that killed 3000 other Americans. That's my take on it anyway. I sincerely hope that Bush isn't a monster, but psychopaths gravitate to positions of power and history is filled with them in politics.

wow, you voted for Bush? With supporters like you

I voted against him twice, but "hardly a stretch"? sorry, I find it absolutely inconceivable. Follow the evidence, my friend, it will serve you well.

 

[Ranb]

James Fetzer is also part of http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html . I was surprised to see Eric Hufschmid's name on the list of members. So I wrote to them suggesting that they include Hufschmid's views on the Apollo landing hoax. I was serious in my letter, but he saw through my BS and suggested that I was foolish to believe that Americans had landed on the moon. For more on the moon hoax, see www.clavius.org .

Any organization that includes Fetzer and Hufschmid in their list of members has no credibility at all.


Ranb

 

[Cleon]

James Fetzer is also part of http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html . I was surprised to see Eric Hufschmid's name on the list of members. So I wrote to them suggesting that they include Hufschmid's views on the Apollo landing hoax. I was serious in my letter, but he saw through my BS and suggested that I was foolish to believe that Americans had landed on the moon. For more on the moon hoax, see www.clavius.org .

Any organization that includes Fetzer and Hufschmid in their list of members has no credibility at all.

I'm usually suspicious of any group that has "Truth" (with a capital "T") right in the name. That's usually a pretty good indication they're full of it.

Combine a group calling for The Truth(tm), with some known nutters, spouting something widely regarded as conspiracy theory BS, and you wind up with...Yet Another Conspiracy Group. Yay!

 

[Ed]

The article lists them as "distinguished experts and scholars", so you can forgive me for making that impulsive distinction. A conspiracy theorist, in my view, is someone who panders sensationalism as nonfiction for a living. With the mounting distrust of the Bush administration, people are becoming increasingly more suspicious of Bush's character. A major anti-Bush sentiment is his supposed "blood for oil" motive. Assuming this was actually the motivation, or something equally amoral, it is hardly a stretch that he'd be in on a staged attack that killed 3000 other Americans. That's my take on it anyway. I sincerely hope that Bush isn't a monster, but psychopaths gravitate to positions of power and history is filled with them in politics.

You are suggesting that an American President staged or was complicit in murder and treason for some ill defined oil motivation?

And the benefit is what? Money. Where is it? How precisely, in reasonably simple accounting terms, does Bush benefit? Where is the money? What does he do with it?

You go from "mounting distrust" to a "major sentiment" to murder to a post hoc diagnosis of psychopathy without a shred of evidence.

BTW, how does one keep a mega conspiracy secret when a sitting (or standing) president cannot get a simple little blow job without getting impeached?

 

[SirPhilip]

Do us all a favor. Google "controlled demolition", find a site from the companies that do it for a living, read how it is done and then come back.

Sure; a controlled demolition also means pre-planning and evaluating failure areas, not just placed explosives. Funny that, if you type "controlled demolition" into Google you get mostly links about the towers. I also don't discredit that the size of the towers concealing key charges either.

Your turn.

 

[Ed]

Sure; a controlled demolition also means pre-planning and evaluating failure areas, not just placed explosives. Funny that, if you type "controlled demolition" into Google you get mostly links about the towers. I also don't discredit that the size of the towers concealing key charges either.

Your turn.

You know what key charges would be required? Did you see the prep of the buildings? How? Who? Why? How was it covered up?

 

[Dr Adequate]

BTW, how does one keep a mega conspiracy secret when a sitting (or standing) president cannot get a simple little blow job without getting impeached?

Monica Lewinsky didn't know when to keep her mouth shut.

 

[SirPhilip]

You are suggesting that an American President staged or was complicit in murder and treason for some ill defined oil motivation?And the benefit is what? Money. Where is it? How precisely, in reasonably simple accounting terms, does Bush benefit? Where is the money? What does he do with it? You go from "mounting distrust" to a "major sentiment" to murder to a post hoc diagnosis of psychopathy without a shred of evidence.
BTW, how does one keep a mega conspiracy secret when a sitting (or standing) president cannot get a simple little blow job without getting impeached?

Point out what was declarative except "mounting distrust" and "major sentiment", both quite true.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

And let's not forget the paranormal, hat-shaped object!!!

(!)

 

[Ladewig]

The article lists them as "distinguished experts and scholars", so you can forgive me for making that impulsive distinction. A conspiracy theorist, in my view, is someone who panders sensationalism as nonfiction for a living. With the mounting distrust of the Bush administration, people are becoming increasingly more suspicious of Bush's character. A major anti-Bush sentiment is his supposed "blood for oil" motive. Assuming this was actually the motivation, or something equally amoral, it is hardly a stretch that he'd be in on a staged attack that killed 3000 other Americans.

Hardly a stretch?! WTF?! If you were Cheney or any of the other cabalists in on the most extensive, most horrific, most well-planned murderous conspiracy in the history of the world, would you let George "I'm misunderestimated" Bush in on the secret?! In 2001, the guy could barely read a teleprompter; flubbed simple questions that he didn't prepare for; and acted generally like a doofus. Why would anyone include Bush on a secret which if revealed would result in charges of treason and 3000 counts of murder? Please! If you're going to spin a story aboout conspiracies, at least make it believable.

Besides, if the powers that be were behind all this stuff, why did the president go into hiding by flying all over the midwest instead of returning directly to Washington. The puppet-masters could have raised Bush's popularity even more if they flew him directly to NYC or D.C. and let him give a speech with the smoking ruins in the background.