Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory

[hot enough]

23 minutes ago, eyeball said:

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. 

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?

Why do you keep on with your patent dishonesty, eyeball? I didn't think this was YOU.

You keep flogging the whistle blowers nonsense and ignore the voluminous science. The science that shows clearly and unequivocally that the US official story is not possible. 

You cite Occam's razor, and it seems you don't even understand it.

"Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."

Consider all the crazy, wild assumptions that make up the US official story that you are willing to accept without the least bit of critical thought. 

You read about lie after lie from the US government and its "scientists" and still you refuse to address the real science. The word escapes me or there isn't a word to describe this level of willful blindness. It's Orwellian!

Edited June 27, 2017 by hot enough

[Omni]

9 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You keep flogging the whistle blowers nonsense and ignore the voluminous science.

Naw that seems to be your job.

[hot enough]

You really want to believe and you are willing to forsake, science, logic, your own eyes, your own brain, everything you've been taught but failed to learn, 

"If it disagrees with experiment it's wrong"!!!

It's Finally Time to Wake Up to 9/11

 

[Omni]

Plane flies into building at high speed. Huge fire ensues, building falls down. The nanu nanu nonsense will thrill you people forever I suppose. Doesn't it get boring after awhile?

[eyeball]

Just now, hot enough said:

Why do you keep on with your patent dishonesty, eyeball? I didn't think this was YOU.

What patent dishonesty? Why would you think you know me?

Quote

You keep flogging the whistle blowers nonsense and ignore the voluminous science. The science that shows clearly and unequivocally that the US official story is not possible.

Don't forget the issue of government competency and lack thereof at virtually anything they do. What possible reason is there to believe it is capable of such an evil crime that would involve who knows how many workers without it getting out the government's control?  It would have to be dozens if not hundreds of workers at least I would think over the span the time you've suggested your conspiracy was pulled off.

It defies credulity that 50 never mind not even one single person has stepped up and said 'I did it". Can you explain that?

The seriousness, scope and scale of the alleged crime is just so audacious that I'm afraid you'll have to show me a level of widespread scientific consensus that is as clear as that upon which climate science rests. You need whistle-blowers on the scale of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden who are bearing the sort of evidence that truly grips the world's attention and that visibly shakes the government and the agencies it directed towards these ends to their cores.    

[hot enough]

20 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What patent dishonesty? Why would you think you know me?

I've read your posts.

Don't forget the issue of government competency and lack thereof at virtually anything they do. What possible reason is there to believe it is capable of such an evil crime that would involve who knows how many workers without it getting out the government's control?  It would have to be dozens if not hundreds of workers at least I would think over the span the time you've suggested your conspiracy was pulled off.

You have no idea of what it would or would not take. But you keep ignoring the stark realities that are absolute impossibilities. 

It defies credulity that 50 never mind not even one single person has stepped up and said 'I did it". Can you explain that?

Sure, I can. No one stepped up for The Gulf of Tonkin until McNamara. No one stepped up for Operation Northwoods. No one stepped up nor would anyone have stepped up for Watergate though most of them were lawyers who have a much higher duty to highlight illegalities.

No one stepped up for the Indonesian genocide where a million people were slaughtered orchestrated by the US State Department. No one stepped up on the US secret bombing of Cambodia. Do you think those bombers were loading and flying themselves?

RED - There are hundreds of thousands of government secrets hidden from view, most in plain sight. RED

Quote

 

 

The seriousness, scope and scale of the alleged crime is just so audacious that I'm afraid you'll have to show me a level of widespread scientific consensus that is as clear as that upon which climate science rests. You need whistle-blowers on the scale of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden who are bearing the sort of evidence that truly grips the world's attention and that visibly shakes the government and the agencies it directed towards these ends to their cores.    

You need to explain the scientific impossibilities that make your concerns here appear, again, I apologize, completely vacuous. The US government conspiracy theory is audacious in its stupidity. Anyone who looks at the entire scheme with a critical eye can see how vacuous it is. 

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

 and that visibly shakes the government and the agencies it directed towards these ends to their cores.    

Did you watch the Jonathon Cole video I posted on the previous page of this thread?

As he says, before we answer "why it was done/how it was done/who did it, we first need to know what IT is. 

If you watch it, you will easily be able to see the grand deception. Here's the link, below. 

Jonathan Cole - 9/11 Experiments: Eliminate the Impossible

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGCWBDFZ5Zs

 

Edited June 28, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

"... they found nanothermite, a military explosive that can be sprayed or painted on ... "

Watch from 10:10 on.

Easy to do in an elevator/insulation upgrade, where workers think they are spraying on insulation. 

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, hot enough said:

"... they found nanothermite, a military explosive that can be sprayed or painted on ... "

Watch from 10:10 on.

Easy to do in an elevator/insulation upgrade, where workers think they are spraying on insulation. 

OK, so the workers colluded in spraying on explosives, and then somebody wired it up and then BOOM. You're funny.

[OftenWrong]

8 hours ago, hot enough said:

There were voluminous reports of bombs and explosions on 911 from many different sources.

 

Coupla comments:

- Just because people heard explosions doesn't mean there were bombs.

- Several of those on your video gave testimony stating that there was a van in the building that was packed with explosives, and this is what took the building down. The van was parked in the basement.

Sorry but the towers collapsed from the top down, each floor pancaking down onto the next one.

[hot enough]

People who know nothing about the events of 911 should refrain from offering uninformed and downright ignorant replies. 

The Pancake Collapse theory was long ago abandoned by everyone, including NIST.

EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY! / MacQueen NYFD 9/11 witnesses

 

[Omni]

14 minutes ago, hot enough said:

People who know nothing about the events of 911 should refrain from offering uninformed and downright ignorant replies.

And they should consider the conspiracy theories the succumb to.

[hot enough]

There are so many people that describe explosions on 911 both before and after the planes hit. 

Edmund McNally phoned his wife Liz twice following the 
[WTC 2] aircraft impact. Mr McNally said in his second phone call "Liz, this was a terrorist attack. I can hear explosions below me." [NY Times]

Tom Elliott, WTC 2 survivor: They saw only two firemen going up. They told them there had been an explosion near the 60th floor. [csmonitor]

Kim White, WTC 1 survivor: "We got down as far as the 74th floor ... Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the stairwell." [People]

[Omni]

54 minutes ago, hot enough said:

People who know nothing about the events of 911 s

Are you surprised that when buildings pancake you might hear some bangs if you are nearby?

[Hal 9000]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Coupla comments:

- Just because people heard explosions doesn't mean there were bombs.

- Several of those on your video gave testimony stating that there was a van in the building that was packed with explosives, and this is what took the building down. The van was parked in the basement.

Sorry but the towers collapsed from the top down, each floor pancaking down onto the next one.

Wait!  If what you're saying is true, then we would have to accept the fact that a 747 smashing into a building at 600mph would cause an explosion.  Seems pretty far fetched!  

[Omni]

4 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

Wait!  If what you're saying is true, then we would have to accept the fact that a 747 smashing into a building at 600mph would cause an explosion.  Seems pretty far fetched!  

Or even a 767.

[Reg]

I was curious about this at one time and did some research. The "truther" argument is not very compelling. I remember reading what appeared to be a very detailed analysis of the properties of jet fuel, and its ability to melt steel.

As someone with very basic knowledge of such things, I know that metal loses much of its strength at much lower temperatures, and that it doesn't need to physically melt in order to become pliable. 

This type of information is missing from these analyses, Right there I know the information is misleading.

As mentioned before, keeping a conspiracy secret between even 5 people is incredibly tough. Each person you add to that makes it exponentially more difficult. 100 people is pretty near impossible. There is research on such things.

for example: https://phys.org/news/2016-01-equation-large-scale-conspiracies-quickly-reveal.html

Im not saying conspiracies don't happen, but very, very improbable on that scale.

[hot enough]

10 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

Wait!  If what you're saying is true, then we would have to accept the fact that a 747 smashing into a building at 600mph would cause an explosion.  Seems pretty far fetched!  

Wait! If Hal was actually trying to offer something of merit as required by MLW guidelines he would have done so but instead he offers the same lame jokes/distractions/shermerisms that is the sum total of the anti-truthers/science deniers/supporters of the US conspiracy theory. 

Quote

"We was in an explosion. We was in the lobby ... and they fucking ... the third explosion ... the whole lobby collapsed in on us."

"..definitely a secondary explosion."

"On our way upstairs, the whole fucking thing blew."

"Then there was a third one (explosion)."

"Everything just let loose in the building."

"There were three explosions after that." [plane hit]

Are the firemen in this video liars, Hal?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=G1zED8dy63w

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, Reg said:

I was curious about this at one time and did some research. The "truther" argument is not very compelling. I remember reading what appeared to be a very detailed analysis of the properties of jet fuel, and its ability to melt steel.

As someone with very basic knowledge of such things, I know that metal loses much of its strength at much lower temperatures, and that it doesn't need to physically melt in order to become pliable. 

This type of information is missing from these analyses, Right there I know the information is misleading.

"Right there", eh, Reg?

1. Do you think it misleading for the twin towers collapse sequence to be described by a "scientific" paper put out on September 13, 2001, two days after the collapse? 

2. You remember reading, Why no link to your "source"? 

3.  You remember reading a source that actually describes jet fuel's "ability to melt steel"? You do know that that is impossible, don't you, Reg?

[Omni]

11 minutes ago, Reg said:

I know that metal loses much of its strength at much lower temperatures, and that it doesn't need to physically melt in order to become pliable. 

Steel loses roughly 50% of it's strength at 60% of it's melting temp. It doesn't have to melt to fail.

[hot enough]

19 minutes ago, Reg said:

As mentioned before, keeping a conspiracy secret between even 5 people is incredibly tough. Each person you add to that makes it exponentially more difficult. 100 people is pretty near impossible. There is research on such things.

for example: https://phys.org/news/2016-01-equation-large-scale-conspiracies-quickly-reveal.html

Im not saying conspiracies don't happen, but very, very improbable on that scale.

Completely fatuous. There are myriad secrets that have been kept from the US people and even after they are discovered, they remain a secret to most "citizens", though hidden in plain sight.

But forget all this anti-truther nonsense, this science denying BS, Reg, and focus on the myriad IMPOSSIBILITIES of the US government official conspiracy theory.

Do you deny that nanothermite, a recently discovered US government/military high grade explosive was found in WTC dust, along with the by products of those nanothermite explosions?

Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel found in large volumes at WTC?

[hot enough]

34 minutes ago, Omni said:

Steel loses roughly 50% of it's strength at 60% of it's melting temp. It doesn't have to melt to fail.

This is typical of anti-truther/science deniers' responses. It has no merit whatsoever. It has been shown to be fatuous, illogical, and not relevant to the events of 911. In short it's a shermerism.

[Omni]

30 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel found in large volumes at WTC

If he doesn't, I will.

[Reg]

21 minutes ago, hot enough said:

"Right there", eh, Reg?

1. Do you think it misleading for the twin towers collapse sequence to be described by a "scientific" paper put out on September 13, 2001, two days after the collapse? 

2. You remember reading, Why no link to your "source"? 

3.  You remember reading a source that actually describes jet fuel's "ability to melt steel"? You do know that that is impossible, don't you, Reg?

I'm not sure what your referring to on the first point. On the second point, I'm talking about looking into this maybe 10/15 years ago. On the third point, I think the claim was that it was impossible for jet fuel to melt steel, therefore the fuel could not have caused the collapse. My point was that the steel is critically weakened at much lower temperatures.

There seems to be a growing market for this Alex Jones type stuff out there. It's easy to put together media that focuses on anomalies (any large chaotic event has anomalies) and paint a picture of conspiracy. Cherry picking information, taking things out of context, all these things can be used to make a compelling argument to those who want to believe.

To be honest, my first thought while watching the towers was a military demo crew went in and dropped the buildings to avoid them toppling on the city. But that was my natural tendency to try and make sense out of a tragic situation. Once I gathered my senses I realized that was highly unlikely. The real tragedy here is the foreign policy that lead to such tragedy.

A govt can treat foreign nations like cannon fodder, but don't look so surprised when the favor is returned.

 

[Reg]

7 minutes ago, Omni said:

If he doesn't, I will.

Please do. I will read Hot Enough's response, but I don't really have more to add to this discussion. I am interested however in people's fascination with conspiracy theories though.