The Titanic sinking conspiracy theory

[santaman2000]

Whats the reason for that then?

Witnesses in general? They are usually too excited/shocked from the event to be reliable.

Witnesses that have some aviation competence? They tend to overate their competence and judgement of what happeded. However, this doesn't effect the reliability of technical experts (aircraft mechanics, avionic technicians, flight instructors, etc. who did NOT witness the event) later examining the evidence (wreckage, films, etc.)

I need to point out that I am not and have not been an aircraft accident investigator (I have been an auto accident investigator later as a cop but that philosophy is different; don't ask me why, I don't know) My experience has been as a maintenence/repair/ground ops technician (particularly in aviation metals early in my career) and, later in my career, as a supervisor for those activities as well as a recreational pilot. My main university degree (Bachelor of Professional Aeronautics with a minor in Aviation Safety) entailed coursework in accident investigations. My references to my attending crash sites were not as the "investigator" as such; rather as a lower team member (usually trying to salvage evidence) and in the one case I was working the flightline the night an F4 crashed on take-off (hence full fuel and munitions) Just want to be clear so I'm not over-claiming professional qualifications I don't have.

 

[santaman2000]

...When the weld breaks the energy stored in the components in tension and torsion is released very quickly. It sounds a bit like an explosion. I've done that sort of thing myself many times to break welds, and it still sometimes makes me jump when it finally lets go.

When you mentioned this it reminded me of sitting in the barn (tin roof) and/or walking along railroad tracks when I was a kid/teenager. On hot Summer days the expanding metal would pop and bang like gunshots.

 

[wattsy]

Thermite has been used for the demolition of metal structures. At least one anyway as per the link i posted. I expect there will be more, maybe just no available info on the web with it being so old.

The pic of the first piling i put up does indeed have all the molten metal dribbled down the piling itself.

Also if you watch the collapse, you can see molten metal start to flow out of the wtc just below where the fires are burning, the building collapses less than a minute after this.

View attachment 9925View attachment 9926



Also there were pools of molten metal, still in liquid form found in the rubble after the collapse. Why was it still there? The temps it was at, were far hotter than the fire could have been which caused the collapse.

View attachment 9924

molten metal doesn't mean molten steel or iron could be copper, lead or aluminium just off the top of my head, i'm sure there's vast quantities of several metals in a building that size. thermite isn't used in building demolitions because it isn't an explosive it's an incendiary, to bring down a tower the columns need to be pre-cut, wired up with a cutting charge and then detonated

 

[cave_dweller]

NASA knows all about the Van Allen belts which is why all the Apollo missions followed a trajectory along the edge of the belts avoiding the areas of strongest radiation, with each astronaut receiving much less than the 5 rem set by the US Atomic Energy Commission as a guideline. NASA, and the people who work for it, are not thick.

Well, I wouldn't say that *none* of them are thick - they've made their share of mistakes, but I think that Dr. Van Allen knew his stuff. His comments on a Fox 'we didn't go to the moon' article...

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."
-- Dr. James Van Allen

 

[shaggystu]

.....Having said that, there were thousands of tonnes of goodness-knows-what materials in a skyscraper and hundreds of tonnes of aluminium, magnesium, fuel, luggage, cargo and of course people hitting it at several hundred miles per hour resulting in a very big fire. It would be surprising if all sorts of chemical reactions that haven't been researched didn't happen.....

that was pretty much my line of thinking. i don't know a great deal about metals, but i do know that under extreme conditions they behave in very unusual ways, ways that are often counter-intuitive. i guess it'd be kind of expensive to re-create the WTC event to investigate properly what happens under those conditions.

...If there are welds in an area where the steel starts to buckle they will probably break. It takes an awful lot of energy to break a big weld in steel by deforming it, for example enough energy to throw the joined components ten metres into the air, whether they weigh a few kilos or a few tonnes. When the weld breaks the energy stored in the components in tension and torsion is released very quickly. It sounds a bit like an explosion. I've done that sort of thing myself many times to break welds, and it still sometimes makes me jump when it finally lets go.

i've heard rows of rivets give way under tension, they go off with quite a bang too. anyone know if there were any rivetted joints in the WTC?

 

[santaman2000]

...i've heard rows of rivets give way under tension, they go off with quite a bang too. anyone know if there were any rivetted joints in the WTC?

It's not likely. The center was designed in the 1960s and opened in 1973; over a half century after rivets were abandoned in scyscraper construction.

 

[HillBill]

molten metal doesn't mean molten steel or iron could be copper, lead or aluminium just off the top of my head, i'm sure there's vast quantities of several metals in a building that size. thermite isn't used in building demolitions because it isn't an explosive it's an incendiary, to bring down a tower the columns need to be pre-cut, wired up with a cutting charge and then detonated

So what if the structure of the WTC, had been rigged with thermite? The fire caused by the aircraft would be enough to ignite wouldn't it? What would happen if the steel on the floors hit, was all cut with thermite. Would it drop a few floors then carry on dropping? In that way the collapse would start from the top.

 

[shaggystu]

It's not likely. The center was designed in the 1960s and opened in 1973; over a half century after rivets were abandoned in scyscraper construction.

thanks for that mate, i was just curious. skyscraper construction's not really something we know a great deal about in north derbyshire

 

[rik_uk3]

No Thermite used

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXxynEDpwrA

 

[rik_uk3]

Any 'explosions' you see start AFTER the building starts to collapse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k

 

[santaman2000]

thanks for that mate, i was just curious. skyscraper construction's not really something we know a great deal about in north derbyshire

LOL. TBH that little tidbit (the switch from rivets to welded joints in scyscrapers) is something I learned on "Modern Marvels." Not a lot of scyscrapers in the Florida Panhandle either.

 

[HillBill]

No Thermite used

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXxynEDpwrA

Vids like that are about as much use as convincing us, as the ones we post convince you.

Traces of thermite were found in the rubble. It's a news headline that it was. Not really something you can say did or didn't. Also the steel piling pic i posted is consistent with a thermite cut. Plus all the molten metal literally flowing from the WTC a minute before the collapse, is also indicative of thermite use.

Too much says it was used. Not really much to say it wasn't. How do you explain the collapse of WT7 Rik? Was that the result of an impact by a plane and the heat from the fires? Simple answer.....NO. Why was the collapse of WTC7 not even mentioned in the 9/11 commission reports?

Its all well and good thinking you can answer one of the points, but there is a hell of a lot more than one point to answer.

Here is the vid of the molten metal running out of the WTC

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774

 

[lub0]

It has been said they collapsed building 7 becuase it was used as the control centre for the demolition of the twin towers. A simple way to get rid of all the evidence.

 

[mountainm]

Here is the vid of the molten metal running out of the WTC

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774

Does it? I see what looks like a molten liquid - it's burning. How do I know it's metal? I think conclusions are being jumped to.

 

[HillBill]

Does it? I see what looks like a molten liquid - it's burning. How do I know it's metal? I think conclusions are being jumped to.

Because pools of it were found in the rubble. Still molten, days and even weeks after the event. Apparently the temps the metal was at when it was found, far exceeded any temp the fire could produce.

 

[mountainm]

...Still molten, days and even weeks after the event....

Reference please?

 

[HillBill]

Google searches are free.

Both sides are in agreement about the molten metal being there upto 8 weeks after the collapse. Thats not even in question. What is in question is WHY it was there.

Debunkers claim it was due to fires burning in the rubble for weeks, creating large amounts of heat which melted the metal.

Theorists claim that hydrocarbon fires, underground, starved of oxygen cannot possibly reach temps that high. I tend to agree. Oxygen starved fires are cooler. Plus you could never literally melt steel with a fire burning standard office kit/furniture

 

[Huon]

Vids like that are about as much use as convincing us, as the ones we post convince you.

Traces of thermite were found in the rubble. It's a news headline that it was. Not really something you can say did or didn't. Also the steel piling pic i posted is consistent with a thermite cut. Plus all the molten metal literally flowing from the WTC a minute before the collapse, is also indicative of thermite use.

....and there's the problem. We're all trying to do this from YouTube videos, newspaper articles and other bits and pieces found online. None of were involved in the investigations and none of us have access to any of the materials we'd need to carry out our own investigations. Personally I'm not saying that any of the theories being put forward here are impossible - although some of them seem astonishingly far-fetched. I'm just saying that I am not seeing any evidence to make me seriously doubt the 'official' versions of the various events. YouTube videos and newspaper articles are interesting but they are not real proof of anything.

Quite a few comments have been made in this thread suggesting that I question what I am told. It seems to me that what was really meant is that I should question any official version but accept any conspiracy theories at face value despite the fact that no real evidence can be provided to support them.

So here we all are 17 pages into this thread and I've yet to see anything to convince me that I should take any of these theories particularly seriously or doubt the official versions particularly.

 

[HillBill]

The thing with 9/11 is that is just one card from a deck. Understanding the game with one card is impossible. You need the deck to play and understand the game properly. 9/11 is nothing on its own. It doesnt make much sense to folk that it might not be what its said to be. But when you bring the deck into play, the game becomes much clearer.

The deck unfortunately, has been well hidden for so long that it seems ludicrous.

You must understand, that folk like Biker and myself, were once the same skeptics that many are. We have changed our opinions over time, its not something that happens as soon as someone says.. this is true or this isnt true. We are not idiots, we are not gullible fools. We are just men who have seen enough to doubt.

People should question what they are told. But that applies to both accounts, not just one. We live in a democracy, and in a democracy the government is answerable to the people who granted them their positions in the first place. Yet, the governments are deciding that they do not need to answer to the people. Why would that be?

....and there's the problem. We're all trying to do this from YouTube videos, newspaper articles and other bits and pieces found online. None of were involved in the investigations and none of us have access to any of the materials we'd need to carry out our own investigations. Personally I'm not saying that any of the theories being put forward here are impossible - although some of them seem astonishingly far-fetched. I'm just saying that I am not seeing any evidence to make me seriously doubt the 'official' versions of the various events. YouTube videos and newspaper articles are interesting but they are not real proof of anything.

Quite a few comments have been made in this thread suggesting that I question what I am told. It seems to me that what was really meant is that I should question any official version but accept any conspiracy theories at face value despite the fact that no real evidence can be provided to support them.

So here we all are 17 pages into this thread and I've yet to see anything to convince me that I should take any of these theories particularly seriously or doubt the official versions particularly.

 

[andybysea]

The most suspicious thing's for me are that Both the U.S and the UK had intelligence and prior knowledge that something was about to happen, both countries were watching the suspect's prior to the events and both countries stopped watching them just before the crimes were commited, im not convinced about the thermite or internal detonations etc,but the lead up events of both incidents are a bit dodgy.