So why blow it up - I already have my diversion, I know it will be investigated - there is still no motive.
The Titanic sinking conspiracy theory
- Thread starter lub0
- Start date
So why blow it up - I already have my diversion, I know it will be investigated - there is still no motive.
Millions if not billions in gold isn't a motive?
Blow it up so that no one knows its gone for weeks/months. Clean getaway, all evidence destroyed, time to sit back an enjoy your handy work..
So thats not a motive for a job that big? How fast would the authorities have been onto them had they not blown it up?
Millions if not billions in gold isn't a motive?
Blow it up so that no one knows its gone for weeks/months. Clean getaway, all evidence destroyed, time to sit back an enjoy your handy work..
And organising a plane to hit the pentagon at the same time... that is necessary too? Or are the two things coincidences?
Would you cut a piece of steel, that big, at such an angle so that the second the cut is complete the girder would come crashing down? No you wouldn't, no one would. It'd be as close to suicide as you could do. No, Acetylene cuts are made in such a way that the material being cut will not collapse on the cutter. Explosive residue was also found Chris.
I would cut it like that to remove it after the collapse,is there any evedence that it was like this before the collapse or was the picture taken after the rubble and other steel was removed.
If it was holding up anything then you're right it wouldn't be cut at all, let alone like that unless you wanted it collapse on top of you.
I don't accept it was a plane that hit the pentagon.
But, a hit on the pentagon would reinforce the diversion, and split the authorities attention.
But, a hit on the pentagon would reinforce the diversion, and split the authorities attention.
I said "thousands" because that's what it would take to accomplish it.
I said $00,000,000 because that was the figure you quoted as having originally being there. I have no idea; jusy ising your figures. If I misread them, I apologize.
Interesting stuff thanks
I agree 100% those girders do look like they have been cut.
My problem though comes from the fact that emergency staff DID cut steel to try and recover trapped people.
How do we know that is not a girder that was cut by the recovery services?
Answer is = we don't
*EDIT, Also wanted the add.
That girder is at ground level, we saw with our own eyes the building collapsed from the top NOT the bottom.
Couple of things here.
First off that's the same bloke professor Niels Harrit.
He DID NOT examine the rubble he is simply jumping to conclusions from findings of the report.
You can find the entire report here.
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
If you read the report you will see that this "rubble" was taken by members of the public from various areas of their apartments, roofs balconies etc at least 200m from the WTC's, stored for 6 years, handled by pretty much anyone, THEN sent for analysis 6 years later.
Hardly a sterile environment is it.
You'll also find if you read the report that is does not say nano-thermite once in the entire report.
In fact there is actually no evidence that such a thing as nano-thermite even exists, as no one outside these conspiracy nuts have even heard of such a thing.
Another nail in the coffin is that after that report was "released" the editor in chief of the journal resigned in disgust.
That's a bit of a give away really isn't it.
What really gets me though is that people are surprised to find out that iron oxide (used in the paint on every single beam in the building) and aluminium (of which there are hundreds of tons in the building) were found in the rubble
NEXT.....
Yeah i remember seeing the images of that, plus theres the fact that traces of Thermite were found too.
Here are the cut girders
I agree 100% those girders do look like they have been cut.
My problem though comes from the fact that emergency staff DID cut steel to try and recover trapped people.
How do we know that is not a girder that was cut by the recovery services?
Answer is = we don't
*EDIT, Also wanted the add.
That girder is at ground level, we saw with our own eyes the building collapsed from the top NOT the bottom.
Couple of things here.
First off that's the same bloke professor Niels Harrit.
He DID NOT examine the rubble he is simply jumping to conclusions from findings of the report.
You can find the entire report here.
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
If you read the report you will see that this "rubble" was taken by members of the public from various areas of their apartments, roofs balconies etc at least 200m from the WTC's, stored for 6 years, handled by pretty much anyone, THEN sent for analysis 6 years later.
Hardly a sterile environment is it.
You'll also find if you read the report that is does not say nano-thermite once in the entire report.
In fact there is actually no evidence that such a thing as nano-thermite even exists, as no one outside these conspiracy nuts have even heard of such a thing.
Another nail in the coffin is that after that report was "released" the editor in chief of the journal resigned in disgust.
That's a bit of a give away really isn't it.
What really gets me though is that people are surprised to find out that iron oxide (used in the paint on every single beam in the building) and aluminium (of which there are hundreds of tons in the building) were found in the rubble
NEXT.....
Last edited:
If he (or anyone) bought the "lease" then he (the lessee) wouldn't have been liable for the repairs anyway (asbestos removal or any other repairs/upkeep) They remain the responsibility of the building owner (whoever that was) Likewise any insurance would have been "renter's insurance) and would not have re-imbursed him for the value of the building; only the furnishings he owned within it. Also he would have been released from said lease and the actual real estate (and any profits from sale/redevelopment) would belong to the owners.
Thats a big piece of steel Chris. Cutting like that, even without the steel supporting another level, would be extremely risky. Again... there was traces of LOTS of explosives and thermite found too. Materials used to drop buildings funnily enough. If there was no trace of such materials, and the building didn't fall in an identical way to controlled demolition then i wouldn't be debating the point.
But as there was, i'll have to wait until someone has a good answer as to WHY there were traces of explosive found. Its this one little detail that matters, its this one little detail that stands out above the others for me with regards to the towers collapse. Why were traces of demolition explosives found?
If there was no trace of such materials, and the building didn't fall in an identical way to controlled demolition then i wouldn't be debating the point. But as there was, i'll have to wait until someone has a good answer as to WHY there were traces of explosive found.
Its this one little detail that matters, its this one little detail that stands out above the others for me with regards to the towers collapse. Why were traces of demolition explosives found?
We will have to agree to disagree on the "thousands" involved part.
At a bare minimum ( going on the robbery theory), there would be the brains ( one man), one man ( top guy) in each WTC building to be hit, who could organise a maintenance schedule. A team of maybe 12 to plant the explosives under the guise of maintenance, and then carry the job itself out. Maybe a bloke high up in the fire dept to let their trucks in and keep the others assigned else where. The planes could have been remotely controlled quite easily,
So i reckon it "could" be done with 20 if the resources were available for them. All they need are the "right" people.
All i said about the gold was that 220 million was recovered. from one of the worlds largest gold depositories and that Kuwait stored its gold there as well as many other countries..
At a bare minimum ( going on the robbery theory), there would be the brains ( one man), one man ( top guy) in each WTC building to be hit, who could organise a maintenance schedule. A team of maybe 12 to plant the explosives under the guise of maintenance, and then carry the job itself out. Maybe a bloke high up in the fire dept to let their trucks in and keep the others assigned else where. The planes could have been remotely controlled quite easily,
So i reckon it "could" be done with 20 if the resources were available for them. All they need are the "right" people.
All i said about the gold was that 220 million was recovered. from one of the worlds largest gold depositories and that Kuwait stored its gold there as well as many other countries..
Last edited:
Again, we will have to agree to disagree for now.
Simple truth is, neither you, me, nor anyone else on the forums actually know the truth. We make our opinions based on many different elements. Trust, faith, experience, knowledge all combine to give each of us a diiffering view of what we see or hear.
If you trust the government, then you won't doubt their story. If you don't and you look at the inconsistencies, then you will.
But how many trust the government? and how many of those who don't, accept their version of 9/11?
Simple truth is, neither you, me, nor anyone else on the forums actually know the truth. We make our opinions based on many different elements. Trust, faith, experience, knowledge all combine to give each of us a diiffering view of what we see or hear.
If you trust the government, then you won't doubt their story. If you don't and you look at the inconsistencies, then you will.
But how many trust the government? and how many of those who don't, accept their version of 9/11?
Interesting stuff thanks
I agree 100% those girders do look like they have been cut.
My problem though comes from the fact that emergency staff DID cut steel to try and recover trapped people.
How do we know that is not a girder that was cut by the recovery services?
Answer is = we don't
*EDIT, Also wanted the add.
That girder is at ground level, we saw with our own eyes the building collapsed from the top NOT the bottom.
Couple of things here.
First off that's the same bloke professor Niels Harrit.
He DID NOT examine the rubble he is simply jumping to conclusions from findings of the report.
You can find the entire report here.
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
If you read the report you will see that this "rubble" was taken by members of the public from various areas of their apartments, roofs balconies etc at least 200m from the WTC's, stored for 6 years, handled by pretty much anyone, THEN sent for analysis 6 years later.
Hardly a sterile environment is it.
You'll also find if you read the report that is does not say nano-thermite once in the entire report.
In fact there is actually no evidence that such a thing as nano-thermite even exists, as no one outside these conspiracy nuts have even heard of such a thing.
Another nail in the coffin is that after that report was "released" the editor in chief of the journal resigned in disgust.
That's a bit of a give away really isn't it.
What really gets me though is that people are surprised to find out that iron oxide (used in the paint on every single beam in the building) and aluminium (of which there are hundreds of tons in the building) were found in the rubble
NEXT.....
Personally I think it's far more feasible that the information concerning the value of the items in the vault was incorrect.
Dont get silly
Facts are,
1, the girders were cut in a manner consistent with a controlled demolition
2, traces of material used to cut steel were found in the Rubble of WTC
3, WTC fell in a manner identical to that of a controlled demolition
All these FACTS are irrefutable. Why are they irrefutable? Because there is EVIDENCE or in the case of number 3, were seen by millions of people
Thermite has NEVER, been used in a controlled demolition EVER.
It's simply to difficult to work with, it's extremely difficult to light remotely.
It HAS been used for welding for many years though, specifically for welding train and subway tracks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR6K90cR8Lg
Like the kind found in that massive subway station under the WTC's.
Don't you think you're just being a tad pedantic with this insistance on names and credentials? Take a look at the photo HillBill posted above it's there in the centre of the pic. No I don't know the fireman, nor do Iknow his bloodgroup or shoe size.
(seems this thread hasn't run it's course after all)
edit found a better image:
Seems this is an entirely natural phemomenon as a result of collapse... even to the melting drips of molton metal. NOT!
Fantastic picture.
Look at the edges of that steel closely, you see that ribbing type surface?
That is from a oxyacetylene torch, the ribbing is from the variations of hand movement and mixture.
If that was a shaped charge of a thermite weld that edge would be smooth.
The other thing is, as i said before that is at ground level, it's obvious from the vids that the buildings came down from the top downwards, not from the bottom.
Lastly,
The rescue crews in the first few days after the disaster were made up more of construction crews than firemen.
Getting heavy equipment in (the usual option) was extremely difficult, so most the rescue work was carried out by what ever they could find that they could carry.
This also involved building supports, welding and a LOT of cutting.
It's not a matter of trusting anyone, it's simply a case of acquiring as much data as you can and forming an opinion..
The report you guys listed is fundamentally flawed, that's got absolutely NOTHING to do with trusting anyone, governments especially.
The report clearly states that the samples were NOT kept in sterile environments.
The samples were not collected by professionals or anyone that had any sense of preserving evidence.
In fact if you bother to actually read ALL the reports and evidence you bring forward then you will see.
Call me old fashioned but that doesn't call "government conspiracy" to me it shouts out "crap evidence collection and storage"
Are you really suggesting that i should form an opinion around:
Badly collected evidence
That was taken from god knows where weeks after the collapse
Stored god knows where
Handled by god knows who
That was then published in a report that the editor in chief disagreed with SO strongly she resigned
That was then taken up by a retired professor who then makes a fortune giving interviews and "lectures" on the subject.
Come on mate someone is turning a blind eye here and it sure as hell ain't me.
Last edited:
So if the ribbed surface of the cut indicates acetylene as you suggest and thermite makes smooth cuts, then what would these be? Thermite? as the cuts are smooth
Personally, i believe these are more like acetylene cuts. Not the other one.
Personally, i believe these are more like acetylene cuts. Not the other one.
Plenty of excavation going on in the background.
Would it not make the place safer if the columns seen there were cut down prior to beginning work?
Would it not make the place safer if the columns seen there were cut down prior to beginning work?
Everyone has a blind eye when it comes to the plane hitting the pentagon. As no one saw a plane.
Its all well and good debating one point but all need to be considered as a whole. So lets look at a few things.3 buildings collapse in their own footprint, one was never hit by an aircraft, yet behaved in an identical way to the ones that had. Never seen before or since.
2 planes apparently vapourize, no one saw them, no evidence visible of any aircraft. Damage caused too small to be caused by the planes said to hit it. Never seen before or since.
1 big stash of gold, directly under said buildings, seems to vanish. 220 million recovered, but not from the vaults of the buildings hit. Wheres the gold that was in those vaults?
