Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Conspiracy theories


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity >> RE: Conspiracy theories Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Conspiracy theories - 8/25/2007 5:13:28 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline 		Well I have to run do some errands, and congrats  to everyone who has and is participating in this thread, it was a pleasure exchaning ideas and theories in a reasonable discussion on the subject rather than the usual derailing by one or 2 (hecklers) as this subject usually attracts.

If any of you all need or desire references let me know i will be happy to provide them as i run across them.



_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Conspiracy theories - 8/25/2007 5:16:16 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
One of the biggest controversies even in the conspiracy world is what is causing the nano particle steel.
May have been caused by for example vibrations, by the sandblasting by the pulverized concrete, perhaps by the thermate charges that were used to melt the steel outer columns and their floor attachment points. Perhaps by another cause that I have not yet fathomed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
It takes extreme heat to vaporize steel into sub micon sizes

Something must have caused it. Ron said that it also happened at that collapsing bridge, so it possibly has nothing to do with explosives nor sandblasting. That leaves vibrations and stress.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Berkley came out immediately and found elevated levels of tritium, which there were sources that "possibly" could account for that if there were several gun scopes that used it.

Gun scopes? How do those use tritium?
I suspect that the source of that tritium is more ordinary. I was taught during physics lessons at school that concrete is naturally radioactive, but that a layer of wall-paper or clothes is sufficient to intercept the radioactive particles.
 
I quote: "Concrete can have some low level of natural uranium series radionuclides in the cement/sand matrix, which will emit alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. However, at 5 cm above the floor, you would not likely see any alpha radiation. You will however detect betas emitted from the surface and, again, if the probe detects gamma rays, you'll have a potential for an increased background due to natural uranium series in the concrete."
 
So the most likely source of the tritium is that during the dozens of years that the towers existed radioactive atoms inside the concrete decayed and that the alpha particles and tritium atoms that they emitted were trapped in the concrete and accumulated there until they were set free by the vaporization of the concrete.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
a very small directional nuclear bomb explosion (as the woman on the bbc suggested).

That was both misdirection and more theatre: "Must make it more exciting for the peasants, you know."
There were no nuclear devices.

< Message edited by Rule -- 8/25/2007 5:21:28 PM >

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Conspiracy theories - 8/25/2007 6:41:08 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Real, as I am sure all your math and your reasoning and engineering skills are all wonderfull....So where is the Fusion reactor you claimed you would have up and running by now?

But you frame a completely false question...

The concrete was not 100% pulverized, there was a huge pile of rubble, you are pretending there was an energy deficit when there isn't one.

The pancaking did not start at the 110th floor, but around the 70th.

You talk about the leftover dust (which was not all concrete) from all the collapsed buildings and then try to analyze the energy from one.

A nuke would not keep the basement hot for weeks (none of your theories would), the natural gass lines feeding into the bottom of the rubble would.

What page of the FEMA report are you qouting from?  Or are you quoting from a video where some claimed that is what the report said.  I am calling bullshit on all of your numbers.

The WTC 7 had sustained severe damage and the crews had been pulled out when the BBC clip was aired, that they got confused in the chaos and reported damaged so bad they abandoned it with destroyed, is not indicitive of much of anything to me.

Why do you continue to lie about Silvermans words?  Quote what he actually said, changing quotes is indeed lying.  And tells us a lot about you, and what you have to do to push your theory

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Conspiracy theories - 8/25/2007 8:03:01 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
May have been caused by for example vibrations, by the sandblasting by the pulverized concrete, perhaps by the thermate charges that were used to melt the steel outer columns and their floor attachment points. Perhaps by another cause that I have not yet fathomed.


i sort of doubt it because the pulverization process would have only raised the temperature a few of degrees.

Now thermate yeh but that to the best of my knowldge wont get you above 5000 which is needed to vaporize.  might hit 3000ish

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
Something must have caused it. Ron said that it also happened at that collapsing bridge, so it possibly has nothing to do with explosives nor sandblasting. That leaves vibrations and stress.

yeh I was hoping ron would have elaborated on that a bit more so i could look it up and see if i could make any sens out of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
Gun scopes? How do those use tritium?  I suspect that the source of that tritium is more ordinary. I was taught during physics lessons at school that concrete is naturally radioactive, but that a layer of wall-paper or clothes is sufficient to intercept the radioactive particles.

ever hear of red dot scopes?  They are pretty kool they work at night and have a tiny transparent red dot and unlike the plasitic ones of yesteryear it is a see through scope.  

Well when they do tritium measurements they do it in comparison to the surrounding area to determine if they have elevated levels.  Its also the method used to verify if a nuclear reaction occured.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
That was both misdirection and more theatre: "Must make it more exciting for the peasants, you know."


You know I cant discount it.  there is so much disinformation out there that it is difficult to determine anything without having the knowledge to "do it yourself" so to speak.  So i hear you but at the same time i cant discount it.


-------------------



< Message edited by Real0ne -- 8/25/2007 8:32:46 PM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Conspiracy theories - 8/26/2007 7:54:56 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

explain the vaporization of the 35W bridge when there was absolutely no evidence of a thermo nuclear device, then some of the issues regarding the towers are solved.


THis is the only 35w bridge i could find and if you can believe wiki they claim it was found to have cracks?

Since 1993, the bridge was inspected annually by Mn/DOT, although no inspection report was completed in 2007, due to the construction work.[17] In the years prior to the collapse, several reports cited problems with the bridge structure. In 1990, the federal government gave the I-35W bridge a rating of "structurally deficient," citing significant corrosion in its bearings.[35] "Structurally deficient" is a classification term which does not in itself indicate a lack of safety. Over 70,000 other U.S. bridges have this classification.[36][37][38]

According to a 2001 study by the civil engineering department of the University of Minnesota, cracking was discovered in the cross girders at the end of the approach spans.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/35wBridgecollapse.gif

you worked on bridges if i remember correctly, do the use e119 rated steel on them too?


according to th earticle tho it sounds like we have alot of bridges that are ready to fall down throughout the us.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Conspiracy theories - 8/26/2007 3:56:57 PM   
thornhappy


Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GhitaAmati

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

If someone really wanted to know the truth, they'd pick up a Physics book.



You have seriously not been paying attention in your upper lever classes have you? The more higher physics and math I take, the more confused about the world around us I am. After a while you just have to come to the conclusion that there are things that just can not be explained by equations, but the more equations you learn, the more you want to try.....

Have you ever wondered why high level engineers are required to take a phsycology class??

As a quick aside, how high level?  I've got an MS and nowhere did I have to take psych class (unless you count Engineering Ethics).  Someone may take psych as a gen ed class, but it wasn't required at either one of my schools, and that includes the PhD folks.

thornhapy

(in reply to GhitaAmati)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Conspiracy theories - 8/26/2007 4:05:59 PM   
Carrianna


Posts: 273
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

My thoughts are as follows.

Many events that are spoken of as conspiracy theories, have elements about them that don`t make sense. Questions that need an answer. If we take everything though, and turn the whole shebang into one big set of conspiracy theories. We run the risk of letting the truth go undetected.

Are we in danger of disbelieving everything and thereby letting the real conspiracies pass under the radar ?



Ummmmmmm disbelieving or not seeing?  Example, the shadow when Neil Armstrong landed on the moon with Buzz Aldrin!

Brilliant thread!


_____________________________

Selfishness must always be forgiven you know, because there is no hope of a cure. "Mansfield Park" J.Austen

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Conspiracy theories - 8/26/2007 5:20:13 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Carrianna
the shadow when Neil Armstrong landed on the moon with Buzz Aldrin!

This shadow?
http://www.clavius.org/manmoon.html

(in reply to Carrianna)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Conspiracy theories - 8/26/2007 7:21:37 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline 		Capturing the video, freezing the still and then looking at a few photos of 7 WTC, it does not look like any of the photographs that I have found. Also, the time I found was 5:20 as the time of collapse, but this little doctored video, says the time of the broadcast is 5:03 and 27 minutes before the fall. That time does not add up as well. So now I have questions about the doctored video.

Where is the time actually displayed?

I have too many questions about the legitamacy of the video, so does that mean there is a conspiracy to make this all look like a conspiracy?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Yes please Real...... im not doubting what you say but i am curious to see it for myself.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88_tYTFUA2s

nice huh?



_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Conspiracy theories - 8/27/2007 12:08:46 AM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		We have never done the moon landing was faked thread, any of you Keepers OF Odd Knowledge, want to try to prove that it was all faked?

Orion, you have to step back and look at how Real frames his stuff,  The BBC episode is real.  On the BBC news show they said the Solomon (WTC7) had been destroyed.  They did not say it had collapsed.  There is a real significant difference here.  By that time, Silverman had pulled the crew of firefighters out, and the decision had been made to let the building burn it self out, The BBC knew that.  If it were a car we would call it totaled, yet that does not mean it is smashed to little tiny pieces.

Go back to the begining of the thread, Real is claiming that every square centimeter of concrete was pulverized to Aresol, then calculating how much energy it would take to pulverize every bit of the concrete (actually the amount of energy it would need would vary depending on method, but we don't even have to go there to show why it is BS).  However there was a huge pile of rubble after the collapse.  His claim that it was all pulverized is simply a lie.  And he knows it...

Also watch a  video of the towers falling, it started at the impact points (mid 70s), not on the top floor 110th, that is why Real wants you to use 110 stories (and the weight of one floor collapsing) in the pancake math, but it is BS.

Essentially everything he says is based on intentionally lying about the events

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Conspiracy theories - 8/27/2007 3:04:58 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Ok i buy this one.... The BBC were told the building had collapsed, they then reported it as such.... That meant they had been told it was collapsed as someone knew it was about to be demolished...... Maybe it needed to be demolished but the point was it had not collapsed.

Mods.......any reason for moving this to polls & random stupidity all it was was off topic ??


Here is the explaination as to why it was demolished.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awcqSy_UsXs

And here is the BBC`s explaination of the timing. As Orion pointed out, the time on the clip Real provided is incorrect, although the BBC confirm that they reported the fall event 23 minutes beforehand.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

Compairing the 2 videos it does look like the same building to me.

Edited for spelling

< Message edited by Politesub53 -- 8/27/2007 3:09:28 AM >

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Conspiracy theories - 8/27/2007 4:33:30 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
We have never done the moon landing was faked thread, any of you Keepers OF Odd Knowledge, want to try to prove that it was all faked?
I have no specific knowledge about that. For now I will assume that it was not faked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
On the BBC news show they said the Solomon (WTC7) had been destroyed.  They did not say it had collapsed. There is a real significant difference here.

That is true. My speakers are not connected to my computer, so I have no idea what was said.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
the BBC confirm that they reported the fall event 23 minutes beforehand.

So that part is true.
 
I quote from the article in said link:
"At 4.27pm, a BBC reporter, Greg Barrow, who is in New York, appears on our radio news channel, BBC Radio Five Live, and says: "We are hearing reports from local media that another building may have caught light and is in danger of collapse." He then responds to a follow-up question by saying "I'm not sure if it has yet collapsed but the report we have is talking about Building 7.

At 4.53pm, on the same radio station, the programme's presenter, Fi Glover says "25 minutes ago we had reports from Greg Barrow that another large building has collapsed just over an hour ago.
 
At 4.54pm, the BBC's domestic television news channel, BBC News 24, reports the same thing. Presenter Gavin Esler says: "We're now being told that yet another enormous building has collapsed... it is the 47-storey Salomon Brothers building.

And then at 4.57pm on BBC World (according to the clips available on the web) presenter Phil Hayton says: We've got some news just coming in actually that the Salomon brothers building in NY right in the heart of Manhattan has also collapsed."

Four times the reporters do not say destroyed, but they definitely said 'collapsed'.

I also find it incredible that BBC world lost the tapes of that day.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Go back to the begining of the thread, Real is claiming that every square centimeter of concrete was pulverized to Aresol

That is not true. He said that 90 000 tons worth of it had been pulverized. I do not know how he got that number. It should be possible to calculate the mass of dust from the distribution of the dust, though. Volume of a cylinder top with sloping top. I wonder whether the dust distribution and the mass of the dust at various distances from ground zero is known.

< Message edited by Rule -- 8/27/2007 4:59:08 AM >

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Conspiracy theories - 8/27/2007 11:34:07 AM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Rule he did the math on how much concrete was used in the building...all of it.  that is where the 90,000 tons comes from. 

You are assuming that all of the dust is concrete, for no apperant reason, except that Real told you to.  Think about it.


(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Conspiracy theories - 8/27/2007 11:53:42 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Rule he did the math on how much concrete was used in the building...all of it.  that is where the 90,000 tons comes from.
I always made the provision that my calculations were valid provided that the data supplied by RealOne were accurate. Unless his data are in some way corroborated or disqualified, the issue is no more than an academic exercise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
You are assuming that all of the dust is concrete, for no apperant reason, except that Real told you to.

I am not assuming anything of the kind. Unless the percentual composition of the dust and the variance of the composite percentages with the distance from the centre are known - if anybody was sufficiently clever to have taken samples - any calculations as to the amount of concrete that was pulverized are impossible. But even now samples may be taken, for example from the harbour, rivers and waterways.

< Message edited by Rule -- 8/27/2007 11:55:15 AM >

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Conspiracy theories - 8/27/2007 12:01:12 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		um, they were taken at the time the building was built, (things like this require inspection by various and sundry agencies) which is one reason I am more or less staying out of this.  Read Underboss by Sammy the Bull Gravano, look at a couple pictures of wreckage (the big balls of cement and metal) and think about the FACT  that the wiseguys owned construction, inspectors, judges, concrete, labour, welders, steel, suppliers...yadda yadda yadda and so on to an overwhelming degree during that era that it was being built (it took like 10 years, ja?) starting in the 60's....Then take a look at the chicken scratching on the paper, the elegant ASCME equations, your 29.95 calculator, and your no. 2 pencil, and if you could get the actual 'as built' compared to the specifications, and then hang your head in your hands and sob, cause you coulda had  couple of cases of beer for all that waste.

James Gandolfini

 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Conspiracy theories - 8/27/2007 12:12:02 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		True Rule, useless samples could be taken from the waterways, hell you can take samples from Mars if you want.  They have no bearing on anything though.

But you are ignoring the other lies Real tried to slip in.  
---Pancaking from the 110th floor.
----That there is a fixed amount of energy required to pulverize concrete to aresol, it depends on the method and conditions, which is similar to his previous lie that Jet fuel burns at a constant specific temperature, it doesn't it varies depending on the conditions.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Conspiracy theories - 8/27/2007 12:16:31 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		Can all conspiracy theories be explained by screw ups ?  Has anyone who generally doesnt believe in conspiracies have one subject they think was a conspiracy ?

As always there are a few i think may have merit, at least for more investigation, many though are too far fetched and defy logic. Pictures and videos are all too easy to alter these days and can move perceptions one way or the other.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Conspiracy theories - 8/27/2007 12:40:05 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
True Rule, useless samples could be taken from the waterways, hell you can take samples from Mars if you want.  They have no bearing on anything though.
That is not true, provided that there are samples, then the total mass of concrete that was pulverized can be calculated rather accurately.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
But you are ignoring the other lies Real tried to slip in.  
---Pancaking from the 110th floor.
----That there is a fixed amount of energy required to pulverize concrete to aresol, it depends on the method and conditions, which is similar to his previous lie that Jet fuel burns at a constant specific temperature, it doesn't it varies depending on the conditions.

I am not about to address all aspects of the attacks and demolitions. I keep to those parts that I understand and can discuss intelligently. Anything else I listen to, and keep it in mind, but it has no effect on my conclusions.
 
You may have noticed that in an earlier thread I did not contribute anything to the discussion about the cutting of metal beams by welders. I simply am a lay person as far as welding is concerned and did not dare to come to any conclusions about that. I simply listened to what Ron and others who are more knowledgable than I about the subject had to say about that.
 
I did see beams falling with hot ends and with smoke trailing from the ends in one of the videos. And I did see deformed and partially molten through beams in one of the towers before it collapsed. The thermate hypothesis is the only one that explains these observations to my satisfaction.

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: Conspiracy theories - 8/27/2007 4:52:13 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		No rule 6 years later the concrete powder would be mixed with all sorts of other sediments, as well as much of it washing away.  You could not even get a rough estimate, from samples taken today.  Which video?  If you have proof lets see it.  Otherwise you are just spouting nonsense.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: Conspiracy theories - 8/27/2007 5:28:03 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
No rule 6 years later the concrete powder would be mixed with all sorts of other sediments, as well as much of it washing away.  You could not even get a rough estimate, from samples taken today. 
It is not my problem, ld1. It is a problem for chemists and physicists and geologists to solve. If they say they cannot, then there is no answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Which video?  If you have proof lets see it.  Otherwise you are just spouting nonsense.

Perform your own investigation, ld1. Google is your friend. I know what I saw and that suffices for me. I am not here to win discussions or to prove my point.

< Message edited by Rule -- 8/27/2007 5:29:58 PM >

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity >> RE: Conspiracy theories Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.096