Official Version or Cover-Up Conspiracy?

Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Official Version or Cover-Up Conspiracy?; The Truth Behind 9/11 Put to the Test
Topic Started: Aug 21 2009, 09:37 PM (159 Views)
shure	Aug 21 2009, 09:37 PM Post #1
Administrator Posts: 1,785 Group: Administrator Member #1 Joined: Feb 13, 2008	Official Version or Cover-Up Conspiracy? The Truth Behind 9/11 Put to the Test in New National Geographic Channel Program http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-19-2009/0005079986&EDATE= Forensic Experiments, CGI Technology and Expert Analysis Meticulously Reconstruct Events and Address Persistent Questions Raised by "9/11 Truth Movement" 9/11: Science and Conspiracy Premieres Monday, August 31, 2009, at 9 p.m. ET/PT WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- America watched in horror as September 11, 2001, unfolded before our eyes. Eight years have passed and no stone has been left unturned in the painstaking process of piecing together what happened that fateful day. Yet according to a 2006 poll, 33 percent of us still do not accept the U.S. government's account. Were the attacks really the work of al-Qaida terrorists, or is it possible something even more sinister was at work? On Monday, August 31, 2009, National Geographic Channel's 9/11: Science and Conspiracy conducts a forensic investigation to test tenets of some of the most common conspiracy theories. Did the Twin Towers really collapse from fires, or did explosives inside cause the buildings to implode? Was the Pentagon hit by a missile, and not a commercial airliner? And why do so many people believe theories like these? The government's official version of events has been consistent: Hijackers commandeered commercial jetliners in a coordinated attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon that killed some 3,000 Americans. Now we hear from a group of theorists, dubbed the "9/11 Truth Movement," who believe the official version is inconsistent with reality, and impossible. Some even go so far as to suggest that the U.S. military plotted a colossal scheme to replace hijacked planes with remotely piloted rogue planes. And their seeds of doubt have spread widely around the world and across the Internet. Using high-tech forensic experiments, CGI re-creations, eyewitness footage and in-depth analysis by experts and theorists on all sides of the story, 9/11: Science and Conspiracy examines the alleged conspiracies and available evidence. Then we take a fascinating fly-on-the-wall position as the theorists observe the scientific results and debate the conclusions. Featured interviewees include "Truthers" Dr. David Ray Griffin, Dylan Avery, and Richard Gage; David Aaronovitch, journalist/author; Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone journalist; Patrick Smith, pilot and Salon columnist; David Baldacci, conspiracy novelist; and Brent Blanchard, demolition expert; among others. National Geographic 9/11: Science and Conspiracy http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/9-11-science-and-conspiracy-4067/conspiracy-vs-science



achimspok	Oct 2 2009, 02:11 AM Post #2
Posts: 297 Group: Members Member #266 Joined: Aug 2, 2009	... or some tricks how to ridicule "truthers". But there are some interesting news given by NG. anchor: "...after 3 investigations the US government concluded: 19 hijackers..." makes 3 investigations in 16 days anchor: "... Perdues findings confirm the reports by the NIST..." That's wrong. FEMA = pancake theory NIST = sagging floors, inward bowing, snapping perimeter columns Perdue University = core collapse due to noodle-ing the core columns (THAT'S NEW!) and at least a core collapse fits the observation of "truthers" years ago. But there was a time these "truthers" had to be "stupid" because they didn't agree with a pancake collapse. ...and later because they didn't agree with a 3 meters sagging of floor slaps and snapping perimeter columns. Of course these columns snapped! ...after the floor was gone. So - wow - let's talk about the noodle-ing of the core and forget about all that bullsh we've been told before!** anchor: "...700 gal jet fuel..." "...bare beam..." "...8 inches high..." by the best possible estimation 5000gal fuel burnt away in the 400000m³ fireballs in 9 sec. hence, about 5000gal remained in the building on 5 different floors + some gallons should have destroyed 3 basement levels below Arturo Griffith + some gallons should have destroyed the lobby above Arturo Griffith + some gallons should have destroyed the 22nd floor How many gallons remained to soften the 47 core columns assuming a lack of other fuel inside the core and thermal conductivity of the steel? OK ... a 8" bare beam without thermal connection and without fireproofing can be soften in 4 minutes due to a lake of burning jet fuel and will not carry the assigned loads (100%) any longer. But how did they do it? With plenty of oxygen jet fuel burns much hotter but black smoke is often a sign of a lack of oxygen. How could that steel beam reach 4 times the "open air burning temperature" of Jet-A kerosene in just a few seconds? I really want to understand this!!! anchor: "...in the twin towers the demolition team would have needed access to 47 inner core columns without being detected..." According to the NIST WTC7 report may be the access to 1 inner core column would be enough to cause some kind of chain reaction especially since the towers were hit by an airplane. anchor: "...the tower elevators were renovated in 2000..." Nevertheless (and according to the NIST report), on 9/11 both express elevators #7A and #6A were out of service and parked at B1. Furthermore two non stop shuttle elevators to the 78th floor #20A and #21A were out of service on 9/11. In other words, there was NO non stop connection to the upper sky lobby on 9/11 and just the freight elevator #50A runs through the whole building. expert: "...looks like most of the material (thermite) boiled out and we did not get the heating action that we wanted on the column..." anchor: "...if thermite can't melt this small column it wouldn't have had a chance to melt through the much larger columns in the twin towers..." That's right. ...but would thermite at least be able to soften an fully loaded 8" steel beam just like a lake of some super jet fuel? The question is eligible because the pictures seemingly telling the contrary. If not then what is thermite usually good for? If yes then the logical conclusion is rather simple. The picture shows a stone cold box column. Nothing happened. What the anchor is trying to say: "Use jet fuel to melt steel because it burns much hotter than thermite. Got it you stupid twoofer?!!" But 22 seconds after the ignition of the thermite... ...that totally unloaded box column glows in a bright orange color despite the fact that seemingly the most of the thermite 'boiled out'... ...probably because of a awkwardly container. Anyway. The major difference to the fuel experiment is the column itself. If you use an I-beam then 100% of the surface gets in contact with the heat. If you use a box column then 50% of the surface gets in contact with the heat. If you use an open vertical box column then you can increase the cooling effect due to the air flow a little bit. Coincidentally the fuel experiment used an fully loaded horizontal I-beam while the thermite experiment used an unloaded vertical open box column. Between the lines lots of seemingly contradicting statements flickering across the screen a little to fast to read and think but slow enough to prove the stupidity of truthers... (red = stupid truther / blue = thinking people) ...but these statements almost always missing the point. I know no so called "truther" who ever denied the office fires. The lingering question is about the temperature of usual office fires especially inside the core given a lack of furniture because elevator shafts usually don't burn 4 times hotter than the "open air burning temperature" of Jet-A kerosene. Conclusion of the anchor: "...truthers may not be convinced..." experts: "...it would require a very large number of people to succeed..." "...several thousand..." "...if not tens of thousands..." "...military, (how many?) police, (whats about the firefighters like John Schroeder?) NYC gov, (like Giuliani?) national gov, (how many?) airlines, (how many?) relatives, (like the family members?) officials, (like Cynthia McKinney or Mike Springman?) demolition teams, (= military) who let them into the towers, (like William Rodriguez?) who saw them go into, (like Scott Forbes?) hijackers, (knowledge depending on their assignment) airforce, (= military) press, (like the press for truth?) FBI, (like Sibel Edmonds?) 9/11 commission ..." (prior to 9/11?) In the end, anyone who saw something, heard something, came to different results in some investigation or just questioning the methods of the official investigation was simply wiped out. ...followed by the "conclusion": if there is nobody who saw anything, heard anything, said anything then thousands have to be complicit in that crime or - simple logic - the official story is true and truthers are stupid. Hmm, but there are some so called truthers who also witnessed something, saw something, heard something, felt something or simply do not agree with the methods. Therefor the final logic must be "the official story is true because any questioner is wiped out and the rest can't be complicit." So may be the first step to convince anyone is honesty. ...and not to ridicule the questioner. In the end, it's a nice piece of propaganda with some excessive use of the word "truther". Nevertheless, watch it! They show an interesting experiment of the Perdue university. They shot an liquid filled aluminum can against a steel plate. The steel reacted like a fluid. Edited by achimspok, Oct 2 2009, 01:39 PM.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »