9-11 conspiracy thread

conspiracy

#1

i’m going to start this show with the most common theory that you’ll see people fight about. “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams”

lets take what the media has said vs what backyard science has to say.

pretty well put together video. i like his methods of testing. however, getting into blacksmithing i’m learing that there are a lot of different kinds of steel of various hardness. was his steel the same kind? was it as thick or was it thicker? what variables could invalidate his experiements? can we suggest changes and have the tests redone?

what other conspiracies do you like to ponder around 9-11. can/has your favorite conspiracy be tested using the scientific method?


#2

Time traveling, but I know it’s different category of conspiracy theories.


#3

are you saying that time travelers caused 9-11? or are you just trying to derail the thread with the very first reply? :beetconnect::joy:


#4

I just asked your question. Hmm okay, I see now

Sorry


#5

I like the conspiracy theory put forth by the Bush administration that a bunch of dudes with box cutters conspired to pull off 911.


#6

lol no worries kimchi :smiley:


#7

i like the fact that if you google:

“plane crash pictures” - you’ll find a lot of pictures of planes… that have crashed… you’ll notice something very common in all of them.

lots of debris and shit all over.

now. take a look at pictures of the sites where the planes crashed on 9/11… hmmm…


#8

i’ll play devils advocate here till others join the fray.

so if you google plane crash pictures there is something they all have in common. they were accidents. and usually the pilots are actively trying to save the craft and all on board from crashing, minimizing the damage as much as possible.

but in 9-11 they supposedly used the jets as manned missiles with the goal of damaging the craft and everything else as much as possible at full speed.


#9

I don’t know what brought those buildings down.
But it cannot be:

  • Fire: They come down at freefall speed.
    Also there are other high rise buildings which did not completely demolished by fire.
    -Thermite: Again they fall at freefall speed. If they used thermite, you would see resistance from the bottom blocks as the buildings collapse.
  • Explosives: Same deal.

I suggest everyone to analyse the wreckage after the math.
Burning cars.
Holes on surronding buildings’ windows.
I have a suspicion some sort of high tech weaponry was used in 911.


#10

like the satilite earthquake weapon theory?


#11

No idea.
Those buildings disappeared…
Have a look at this video after 5 days.

There is very little debris left.
Where are the tons of tons of steal and concrete?
& it is still burning!!!
What can burn days after days?
What sort of energy is this?


#12

I like this thread. Got a feeling it could be more heated than the ICX thread!

image


#13

its gonna get hot enough to melt steel beams up in here! lol


#14

I know more than most as my company was involved in the hijackings. I personally knew and worked with one of the flight attendants killed. I’ll sit this one out eating popcorn as folks with zero science or technical backgrounds entertain me.


#15

This thread can get interesting

I have another more puzzling scenario here, can someone please explain me how a frickin “supposedly” Boeing 757 made this hole in the pentagon and there is no plane debris around and no wing damage to the external parts of the building?

IMO looks like a cruise missile … oh and WHO would’ve launched a cruise missile ? yeah that is right …

:man_shrugging:t2::beetconnect::tinfoilhat:


#16

Because a 757 crashing into a concrete structure at 500+mph is analogous to a paper airplane being launched into a scaffolding made of 2x4s at a 100 mph. The aluminum skin on the wings are less than a millimeter thick. Everyone assumes an airliner is like an over engineered metal battle tank. They aren’t. They’re light and made to fly.

The 757s wing’s are swept for high speed aerodynamics. When it hit the building they continued to follow the path of least resistance and folded over into the fuselage.

@JonRD463, help me out here bud.


#17

I know what you are saying, but anything that hits a brick/concrete structure at that speeds, leave at least a mark on the building is what I’m trying to say and there is clearly none at all.

I’m not expecting a perfect plane silhouette hole in the structure like cartoons lol but no marks at all ?

Does this damage seem to be a scene of a 757 plane crash ?

more over, you have experience in this matter, but is it possible to fly a 757 that close to the ground at 500+ mph as you say ? the approach should’ve been from very far away at those speeds too


#18

Could I fly a plane at 500 mph that close to the ground (or water) Yes, easily. I’ve done it.

“have at least a mark”…It’s all perspective, but yes, I see where the engine mounts entered the building


#19

There are cases of planes flying directly into mountains. They still leave debris.


#20

well you have to remember, there were at least 6 floors of basement and i think a few sub-basement floors as well.
add to this, that the structure was largely hollow due to the outer shell being what made it structurally sound.
once it collapsed it likely collapsed inward and down, filling up most of the sub floors.

most fires can burn for days if given enough fuel and deprived of ample amounts of oxygen,
you can see this effect in Swedish fire log setups like this

gravity most likely…