Are All Conspiracy Theories False?

CurtC said:
But wait - that's just the amount of C4 per tower to equal the gravitational energy in each tower. The CTers' claim is that the gravitational energy was way too small to cause the observed destruction, so we need to multiply that by what, 10?

So according to TruthSeeker1234, each tower was loaded with more than two million pounds of C-4 (or equivalent).
Click to expand...

Loss Leader said:
I get 98,159,510 cubic centimeters. That's 98 cubic meters. So that's a circlular area 8 meters in diameter and 2 meters high.

Is that right?
Click to expand...

Ok, here's a question. Assume the wall panels were removed, the fire proofing pushed aside, the steel girders and whatnot already prepped...

How much time would it take to place 2 million pounds of C4 and wire it? Huntster, any idea? (This is per building, but let's say they did both buildings simultaneously.)

ETA: Forget about transporting it. Assume the C-4 is already there on site, in a big pile, divvied up into convienent 1lb (or whatever you use) chunks, just waiting to be stuck on the wall.
 
Gravy said:
Where are all the CTs today? Home studying?:
Click to expand...
I think they're still licking their wounds after "South Park."

Anyway, despite the fact that TruthSeeker1234 seems to have abandoned this thread as well, once he got dangerously close to learning something, I would like to follow up with a clear comparison.

Earlier we calculated that each tower contained the equivalent of 160 tons of TNT in terms of gravitational energy. TruthSeeker1234 among others has intimated that much, much more was needed, in the form of explosives or otherwise. Never mind that it would be pointless, difficult at best to do, and guarantee that the WTC collapses would look strange, but let's run with it.

So he postulates more than 320 tons of TNT between the two towers.

Let's conservatively say 500 tons.

Anybody want to see what 500 tons of TNT looks like?

Here's some photographs of 500 tons of TNT, both as a big pile before detonation, and a staggering blast afterwards. And here you can download some video. This all took place on Kaho'olawe Island, in a Navy test to estimate how well modern guided-missile surface ships might fare in a nuclear environment.

I normally don't post pictures. It's enough to say, scientifically, that the intense heat flash, incredible shock wave (clearly seen), and enormous supersonic evolution of the fireball would have been unmistakable, as would the instant fracture of every single window in New York City, everyone watching being thrown off their feet, and nearby helicopters crushed like bugs as they flew nearby. The very idea is ludicrous, even if we don't start tearing pages out of X-Men comic books and claiming them to be real... Tesla weapons and "Fusion Flashlights" indeed.

No, I normally don't post pictures, but these are kinda cool. Enjoy. May you learn something, TruthSeeker1234, and other deniers who may be watching. Your theories are totally out to lunch.
 
R.Mackey said:
No, I normally don't post pictures, but these are kinda cool. Enjoy. May you learn something, TruthSeeker1234, and other deniers who may be watching. Your theories are totally out to lunch.
Click to expand...

Well, I tend to like pictures, myself, because while all the calculations in the world can be informative and enlightening, seeing the thing in action puts things in perspective. Of course, when you don't want to learn, you can interpret both the pictures and the numbers to mean anything you want.


I think I'm going to make t-shirts that say "F*** Reality!" (without the stars). I think Gravy, Realitybites and Abby would look stunning in them at ground zero. Plus, the irony!
 
Gravy said:
That 500-ton blast video is quite impressive.
Click to expand...

Yea. I've seen the video before, but I always assumed it was a small nuclear bomb.

Well that settles it--it's obvious that's what took down the towers!
 
From the Gravy Whitepaper:

There is anecdotal evidence of molten metal in the basements of WTC
buildings 1, 2, 6, and 7 in the days and weeks after 9/11. CTs often
call this “molten steel,” although the metal in question was never tested and its composition is unknown.
Click to expand...
Why was it never tested? Any real scientist would be compelled by curiosity to find out the composition of the molten metal. Dr. Jones has obtained a sample of previously molten metal from the freedom park, and his tests indicate that it is predominantly iron. Though structural steel is made from iron, Jones' test rule out structural steel as the source. Aluminum is also ruled out. Gravy, you may disagree with Jones' conclusions, but to say that it "was never tested" is true only for the official investigations, and is not true overall.

I think you should make this clear in your whitepaper, and then give whatever explanation you wish, rather than leading the reader to believe a falsehood.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
From the Gravy Whitepaper:

Why was it never tested? Any real scientist would be compelled by curiosity to find out the composition of the molten metal. Dr. Jones has obtained a sample of previously molten metal from the freedom park, and his tests indicate that it is predominantly iron. Though structural steel is made from iron, Jones' test rule out structural steel as the source. Aluminum is also ruled out. Gravy, you may disagree with Jones' conclusions, but to say that it "was never tested" is true only for the official investigations, and is not true overall.

I think you should make this clear in your whitepaper, and then give whatever explanation you wish, rather than leading the reader to believe a falsehood.
Click to expand...

*LOL* Dr. Jones said he had the samples from someone who found them somewhere. Great evidence, isn´t it?
 
NobbyNobbs said:
Ok, here's a question. Assume the wall panels were removed, the fire proofing pushed aside, the steel girders and whatnot already prepped...

How much time would it take to place 2 million pounds of C4 and wire it? Huntster, any idea? (This is per building, but let's say they did both buildings simultaneously.)

ETA: Forget about transporting it. Assume the C-4 is already there on site, in a big pile, divvied up into convienent 1lb (or whatever you use) chunks, just waiting to be stuck on the wall.
Click to expand...


I'm serious...can anybody address this? Depending on the answer, it may poke yet another big hole in the CT.
 
From Gravy, page 89:

Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed
the fires?
Short answer: we don’t know. Perhaps the final NIST report will shed
more light on this issue, which is an important one.
Across the country, diesel-powered generators are used in
buildings like hospitals and trading houses, where avoiding
power outages is crucial. Partly for that reason, a definitive
understanding of what happened in 7 World Trade Center is vi-
tal to investigators, saidJonathan Barnett, a professor of
fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic In-
stitute.
–“Diesel suspected in WTC 7 collapse” James Glanz, New York
Times, November 29, 2001.
Click to expand...

We've been trying to figure this out for a while now.

This article, James Glanz, physicist, November 29, New york Times, was orginally titled

ENGINEERS ARE BAFFLED OVER THE COLLAPSE OF 7 WTC:
"STEEL MEMBERS HAVE BEEN PARTLY EVAPORATED"
Click to expand...
The title of the article has now been changed to


ENGINEERS HAVE A CULPRIT IN THE STRANGE COLLAPSE OF 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER: DIESEL FUEL
Click to expand...

The original article had reference to steel with a "swiss cheese" appearance . Now the article title suggests that we have "A CULPRIT".

Gravy says we don't have a culprit, maybe we do, we'll wait (5 more years??) for another report.

What is up with this article? Did the "conspiracy theorists" just invent the original article? Or . . .

Was it Cleansed? I think this may be why Jonathan Barnett is afraid to talk to me.
 
What is up with this article? Did the "conspiracy theorists" just invent the original article? Or . . .

Was it Cleansed?
Click to expand...

Or was it like every other news article on the internet, updated every 15 minutes with the most recent information.

But I wouldn't put it past a great many conspiracy theorists to invent evidence, they do it all the time.

I think this may be why Jonathan Barnett is afraid to talk to me.
Click to expand...

I think you're probably wrong as to why he didn't want to talk to you. Personally, when I come across raving lunatics, I try to avoid conversations with them. Perhaps he was thinking along similar lines, after you went into your spiel.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
From Gravy, page 89:

We've been trying to figure this out for a while now.

This article, James Glanz, physicist, November 29, New york Times, was orginally titled

The title of the article has now been changed to



The original article had reference to steel with a "swiss cheese" appearance . Now the article title suggests that we have "A CULPRIT".

Gravy says we don't have a culprit, maybe we do, we'll wait (5 more years??) for another report.

What is up with this article? Did the "conspiracy theorists" just invent the original article? Or . . .

Was it Cleansed? I think this may be why Jonathan Barnett is afraid to talk to me.
Click to expand...

Please provide links to the two articles you cite.

Don't flatter yourself. Nobody is "afraid" to talk to you.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I think you should make this clear in your whitepaper, and then give whatever explanation you wish, rather than leading the reader to believe a falsehood.
Click to expand...
Your evidence that what Jones tested was part of the pools of molten metal observed in the basements?

TruthSeeker1234 said:
Gravy says we don't have a culprit
Click to expand...
Where do I say that? Perhaps you should read the many pages of eyewitness accounts to WTC 7's condition that I bothered to collect for you.

While you're at it, your apology for your false accusation in your post yesterday is in order.
 
Last edited:
I posted these in the wrong thread, I meant them to be in the Gravy Paper thread. I'll repost them there and answer. Your comments on "amount of explosives" bring up an internal contradiction within the OCT.
 
jimtron said:
Case by case. Of course there have been real government and non-government conspiracies.

It's a question of evidence.
...
Click to expand...
It's also a question of scale.

The Trilateral Commission secret government and the 9/11 secret plot would both have to involve hundreds of participants, none of whom ever blow the whistle and all of whom are involved in a movie version of world controlling body.

The current government is inept and whistle blowers are everywhere. 9/11 as described in Loose Change is unequivocally impossible. While corporations weld considerable world power, they also have not been able to control information and world government decisions as would be required for some world government to be operating. The Trilateral Commission secret world government is unequivocally impossible.

Conspiracies involving fewer numbers of people like the Kennedy assassination would have been possible but indeed there is no convincing evidence.

On the other hand, for a cross dresser, Hoover (of the FBI) certainly seemed to enjoy tremendous power over government officials and having a file full of blackmailing evidence against various people is certainly one possible explanation. Consider now how many of these guys have affairs and corruption scandals being revealed. There's no reason not to think at least some of the same behaviors were occurring in the 50s and 60s.

Corporations buy tremendous influence in governments and have consolidated some of their power to control information in the USA especially. Rather than a coordinated conspiracy, it seems more likely to be the result of the natural evolution of events.

There is plenty of evidence for various conspiracies, some events have indeed occurred but weren't due to coordinated conspiracies, and there are a whole lot of fantasy conspiracies that seem to have a movie version basis for credibility rather than a reality basis. We've seen the Men in Black movies. Some people get carried away with imagination after watching them.


**Sorry, did it again. I replied without noticing there were 5 pages since the OP. Oh well, back on topic but topic is probably exhausted by now.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I posted these in the wrong thread, I meant them to be in the Gravy Paper thread. I'll repost them there and answer. Your comments on "amount of explosives" bring up an internal contradiction within the OCT.
Click to expand...
Sure they do.

Anyone want to bet he flees this thread again, and never says what he means in the bolded bit above?

If you had the honesty to read the 9/11 Commission and NIST, and the intellectual capacity to understand it, you would understand that there is no such contradiction. However, if you would like us to explain it to you, we can. Please tell us what you don't understand. For extra credit, ask politely for opinions on your interpretation.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Of course Nazism was a conspiracy. The German people were told they were under attack, that the "Communists" wanted to get them. While Hitler made public statements about the depression being the fault of "jewish bankers", the policy of mass murder was top-secret. Thousands of operatives kept silent as they went about their horrific business.

If Germany had won the war, the holocaust would be a conspiracy theory, denied to this day.
Click to expand...


Your lack of historical perspective makes me understand your naive nature a little better. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom