The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[psikeyhackr]

#&*%!@ 9/11 Anniversary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMV8E_83NiI

[514,671} Forgot to keep count for posterity.

[proudfootz]

I can hardly wait to see Rachel Maddow getting all over this story.

New evidence submitted in a lawsuit against the Saudi Arabian government shows that its embassy in Washington may have funded a 9/11 “dry run” by two Saudis, possibly reinforcing the claim that employees and agents of the kingdom directed and aided the 9/11 hijackers, the New York Post reported on Saturday.

Two years before the airliner attacks, the Saudi Embassy paid for two nationals living in the US as students to fly from Phoenix to Washington “in a dry run for the 9/11 attacks,” alleges the amended complaint filed on behalf of the families of some 1,400 victims who died in the terrorist attacks 16 years ago, the Post said.

The court filing provides new details that paint “a pattern of both financial and operational support” for the 9/11 conspiracy from official Saudi sources, lawyers for the plaintiffs say. They add that the Saudi government may have been involved in underwriting the attacks from the earliest stages, including testing cockpit security.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/lawsuit-re ... un/231796/

This has got that 'Russian hack' conspiracy theory beat by a country mile.

[Tremilberg]

I have been reading up on this thread lately. It really strikes me how irrational and profoundly unskeptical to the official story most participants seem to be. I suspect this may be due to a lack of independent thinking and an irrational belief in what ever ideas the current paradigm is subscribing to, wether or not those ideas are sound and good. I suspect that had the 911 commission come to the opposite conclusions, the same people here would have overwhelmingly defended it against anyone who dared critisizing the very same points they are now trying to ridicule. I thought the term "rational skepticism" implied a rational approach to evaluating ALL evidence and drawing conclusions only after a thorough investigation, and carefully making sure that the laws of physics are not broken and that highly improbable explanations are avoided. (Like the one with the 19 hijackers who managed to outsmart the US defence, fly planes they weren´t qualified to fly, much faster than the planes were designed to fly, into buildings that had never heard about Sir Isaac Newton and his laws, so they immediately gave up all resistance and collapsed in a cloud of dust before anyone could say "conservation of energy", while simultaneously imitating both a volcano and a controlled demolition, leaving behind a pool of molten steel, and also making all the occupants magically disappear to another dimention). I don´t know what happened on that day. But I would really, really like to know. That´s why we should demand answers to our questions, and not accept ommissions and false conclusions based on faked evidence.

[felltoearth]

IMG_3333.JPG (85.42 KiB) Viewed 1082 times

[Thommo]

But I would really, really like to know.

Consider me a sceptic. Because I don't believe that without evidence.

[GrahamH]

I have been reading up on this thread lately. It really strikes me how irrational and profoundly unskeptical to the official story most participants seem to be. I suspect this may be due to a lack of independent thinking and an irrational belief in what ever ideas the current paradigm is subscribing to, wether or not those ideas are sound and good. I suspect that had the 911 commission come to the opposite conclusions, the same people here would have overwhelmingly defended it against anyone who dared critisizing the very same points they are now trying to ridicule. I thought the term "rational skepticism" implied a rational approach to evaluating ALL evidence and drawing conclusions only after a thorough investigation, and carefully making sure that the laws of physics are not broken and that highly improbable explanations are avoided. (Like the one with the 19 hijackers who managed to outsmart the US defence, fly planes they weren´t qualified to fly, much faster than the planes were designed to fly, into buildings that had never heard about Sir Isaac Newton and his laws, so they immediately gave up all resistance and collapsed in a cloud of dust before anyone could say "conservation of energy", while simultaneously imitating both a volcano and a controlled demolition, leaving behind a pool of molten steel, and also making all the occupants magically disappear to another dimention). I don´t know what happened on that day. But I would really, really like to know. That´s why we should demand answers to our questions, and not accept ommissions and false conclusions based on faked evidence.

Your post is a fine example of the sort of irrational nonsense that some consider a justification for claims of "an inside job". If you were any sort of rational sceptic you would soon see that none of your wild assertions stands up to scrutiny.

Take your own advice to "not accept ommissions and false conclusions based on faked evidence"

[theropod]

Pool of molten steel?

RS

[GrahamH]

Pool of molten steel?

RS

There are reports of something red hot and flowing under the rubble that some witnesses described as molten steel. AKAIK there is no material evidence that it was steel. I don't think anyone analysed a sample of the molten material and no large lumps of solidified steel were excavated.

http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

To finish, none of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC. There's no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming "molten steel" have built-in implausibilities. There was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within the range of a fire.

[NuclMan]

Fire can't melt steel beams!

Even if there was molten steel observed, with miles of high voltage cabling running throughout the building severed and mangled and potentially in contact with structural steel, it's not hard to envision some of it melting as a result.

[Xaihe]

Pool of molten steel?

RS

There are reports of something red hot and flowing under the rubble that some witnesses described as molten steel. AKAIK there is no material evidence that it was steel. I don't think anyone analysed a sample of the molten material and no large lumps of solidified steel were excavated.

http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

To finish, none of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC. There's no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming "molten steel" have built-in implausibilities. There was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within the range of a fire.

The pools of molten steel idea was based on edited images, the orignals of which were really easy to find. It was debunked not long after it was brought up. Of course, given how people are sometimes inclined to avoid all evidence that goes against their beliefs, this molten steel idea is still alive and well in certain circles.

[proudfootz]

To be fair, the 'pools of molten steel' was not based on photographs, but on eyewitness accounts.

Of course, given how people are sometimes inclined to avoid all evidence that goes against their beliefs, this idea that the molten steel is based on photos alone is still alive and well in certain circles.

[psikeyhackr]

A simple simulation would be to remove the simulated levels 91, 92, 93, 94 and 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories floating in the air and 90 intact simulated stories below. Let gravity take its course. The bottom of the 15 would impact the top of the 90 in just under 2 seconds at 44 mph. A bit less than 3600 km/hr (2232 mph).

The levels get stronger and heavier going down and lighter and weaker going up. Even 3 to 1 destruction, which I regard as extremely unlikely, would leave 45 stories standing. Completely eliminating 5 stories is more destruction than the airliner impact and fires could do. So if that simulation comes nowhere near complete collapse then what is this nonsense that has been going on for NINE YEARS?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/consp ... ml#p791986

Make that SIXTEEN YEARS!

[520412]
psik

[Agi Hammerthief]

and you still didn't learn a bit, aparently.

[GrahamH]

To be fair, the 'pools of molten steel' was not based on photographs, but on eyewitness accounts.

Of course, given how people are sometimes inclined to avoid all evidence that goes against their beliefs, this idea that the molten steel is based on photos alone is still alive and well in certain circles.

There is NO evidence for molten STEEL. There is only eyewitness reports of something presumably red hot and flowing.

None of the reports include any sort of evidence for what the material was, how hot it was or anything substantive.

Of course, given how people are sometimes inclined to take imprecise remarks as rock-solid evidence to support their beliefs the idea that there was molten steel is still alive in certain circles.

[psikeyhackr]

and you still didn't learn a bit, aparently.

So you are claiming there is something to be learned from a simulation that has not been done?

As for simulations actually done:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMV8E_83NiI

psik

[Animavore]

Oh! Didn't you vet the memo?

One of these is not like the other.

Anyway, a gobshite like Trump wouldn't be able to keep his fat mouth shut if there was a conspiracy. Same goes for Roswell.

Therefore; conspiracy theories debunked.

Same applies here. It's over. Go home.

[proudfootz]

To be fair, the 'pools of molten steel' was not based on photographs, but on eyewitness accounts.

Of course, given how people are sometimes inclined to avoid all evidence that goes against their beliefs, this idea that the molten steel is based on photos alone is still alive and well in certain circles.

There is NO evidence for molten STEEL. There is only eyewitness reports of something presumably red hot and flowing.

None of the reports include any sort of evidence for what the material was, how hot it was or anything substantive.

Of course, given how people are sometimes inclined to take imprecise remarks as rock-solid evidence to support their beliefs the idea that there was molten steel is still alive in certain circles.

Yes, some folks even seem to believe these eyewitnesses saw photos of something instead of actually being on site.

Anything to prop up their beliefs, I suppose.

[proudfootz]

Oh! Didn't you vet the memo?

One of these is not like the other.

Anyway, a gobshite like Trump wouldn't be able to keep his fat mouth shut if there was a conspiracy. Same goes for Roswell.

Therefore; conspiracy theories debunked.

Same applies here. It's over. Go home.

I suppose it just proves your theory that Trump was behind 9/11 is debunked.

Maybe you should go home?

[Animavore]

Oh! Didn't you vet the memo?

One of these is not like the other.

Anyway, a gobshite like Trump wouldn't be able to keep his fat mouth shut if there was a conspiracy. Same goes for Roswell.

Therefore; conspiracy theories debunked.

Same applies here. It's over. Go home.

I suppose it just proves your theory that Trump was behind 9/11 is debunked.

Maybe you should go home?

No. It doesn't. The President is privy to information. Confidential stuff. Top security clearance. To say that this is being withheld from him is layering even more conspiracy on top of what's there.

Not that adding layers of increasingly implausible theories on top of already far-fetched ideas and multiplying entities isn't already what makes every conspiracy theory ever completely worthless.

What I'm saying Is, this whole thread was destroyed on the first page. And yet they persist.

[Agi Hammerthief]

and you still didn't learn a bit, aparently.

So you are claiming there is something to be learned from a simulation that has not been done?

As for simulations actually done:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMV8E_83NiI

You should know by now, I'm claiming the usual:
That you, personally, are unable to learn.
Specifically: Unable to learn basic engineering and material property facts that would allow you to recognise that the simulations you want to see are garbage at best and that the construction details you stated are irrelevant to the mode of collapse.