It is not my theory.

It is not my theory.

Then why are we having this discussion?

It is not my theory.

Then why are we having this discussion?

Maybe because he has been given sufficient evidence to change his opinion so he no longer believes in this "theory".

.........

New ideas should be presented with tangible proof. Not some cockeyed theory that has no basis in fact. Alex hs presented no tangible facts, nor have you.

The gullible massses accept the cockeyed theories. It is not something I choose to do.

Now you've missed my point, as usual. New ideas are exactly that; "Ideas". Hypothesis. By their very nature, they do not have tangible proof, just some open-ended questions for which proof may arise if the idea is investigated. It is how most technology we have today has come about.

Take the number of executed prisoners in the US that were later proved to be innocent. I am sure all of them would have been happy if someone had offered an hypothesis, investigated it, and then proved their innocence BEFORE they died. But they'd been "proved" guilty at the time...turns out that "proof", even state-endorsed proof is not always reliable.

Hypothesis, theories, ideas. They arise because some factors indicate their feasibility. The proof comes later.

As for the gullible masses, I'm sure there are some cockeyed theories that they swallow.... but usually, when referring to the gullible masses we are talking about the average Joe on the street that unquestioningly laps up everything his government tells him, like WOMD in Iraq or the absolute need to spend billions and bankrupt the country to invade Afghanistan to protect American shores.

It is the closed minded average Joe that rejects all new ideas.

N.B....my first post on this thread actually indicated how I felt about the nuke idea....I was and still am skeptical. I think I may have brought up the lack of radiation too in a later post too

It is not my theory.

Then why are we having this discussion?

Maybe because he has been given sufficient evidence to change his opinion so he no longer believes in this "theory".

Where did I say I believe in this theory? Please go back to post number 1, are you confusing me with someone else?

I have said that I am not sure if the official explanation (Pancake theory) correctly explains how these buildings went down.

There's a few hundred construction engineers that say similar things.

I have asked a few questions regarding this nukulaaah theory, namely how from the pictures I posted it seems the building goes top down and where is the cavity of 100M wide as the Russian guy says there is/should be.

I have asked a few questions regarding this nukulaaah theory, namely how from the pictures I posted it seems the building goes top down and where is the cavity of 100M wide as the Russian guy says there is/should be.

Of course it does. The collapse started where the plane hit as it should. That's where the floors were initially damaged. If it collapsed from the bottom that would be very, very odd.

Please someone comment on one of the other threads. I hate getting mixed up in these stupid 9/11 conspiracy theory threads.

Problem with theories like this is..... the people making the theories are only expert in their particular field. So in this case he may (or may not) be experience in underground Nuke explosions. He see's patterns that follows what he knows so EUREKA, underground Nuke Test.

They only make these theories based on their particular knowledge.

If a nuke was used, wouldn't radiation have been detected?

If a nuke was used, wouldn't radiation have been detected?

No & its explained why in his video. Time to at least watch some of the stuff old fella, before you come out and put stickers on it

That is why I phrased it as a question. I've seen plenty of nutty videos already.

Problem with theories like this is..... the people making the theories are only expert in their particular field. So in this case he may (or may not) be experience in underground Nuke explosions. He see's patterns that follows what he knows so EUREKA, underground Nuke Test.

They only make these theories based on their particular knowledge.

Very true.

Problem with theories like this is..... the people making the theories are only expert in their particular field. So in this case he may (or may not) be experience in underground Nuke explosions. He see's patterns that follows what he knows so EUREKA, underground Nuke Test.

They only make these theories based on their particular knowledge.

Well, of course! How can anyone credibly put forward an hypothesis based on something he doesn't know??

Exactly....

So now carry on the with that logic....

The russian says nuke from his knowledge...

The industrial engineers says structural failure....

The demo expert says, control demo.....

So basically all these theories have blinders on...they see only what they want to see and are based on "limited" knowledge.

Exactly....

So now carry on the with that logic....

The russian says nuke from his knowledge...

The industrial engineers says structural failure....

The demo expert says, control demo.....

So basically all these theories have blinders on...they see only what they want to see and are based on "limited" knowledge.

It seems Mr. Mushroom has his head screwed on straight.

Exactly....

So now carry on the with that logic....

The russian says nuke from his knowledge...

The industrial engineers says structural failure....

The demo expert says, control demo.....

So basically all these theories have blinders on...they see only what they want to see and are based on "limited" knowledge.

It seems Mr. Mushroom has his head screwed on straight.

I'm glad that you agree. So, therefore, your subscribing to the official line is just as based on theory as any alternative opinion.

My stance has always been that there are unanswered questions and anomalies, and no theory, including the official one, is watertight.

When "the gullible masses" take a theory as gospel truth, and refuse to entertain any other notion, that's when I start talking about "the gullible masses", and closed-mindedness.

When "the gullible masses" see two jet airplanes loaded with fuel crash into a building that is destroyed and they accept that "theory" rather than some nutty idea that the US Government actually blew it up with nuclear bombs that were planted underneath, who are the "gullible" ones?

Exactly....

So now carry on the with that logic....

The russian says nuke from his knowledge...

The industrial engineers says structural failure....

The demo expert says, control demo.....

So basically all these theories have blinders on...they see only what they want to see and are based on "limited" knowledge.

It seems Mr. Mushroom has his head screwed on straight.

I'm glad that you agree. So, therefore, your subscribing to the official line is just as based on theory as any alternative opinion.

My stance has always been that there are unanswered questions and anomalies, and no theory, including the official one, is watertight.

When "the gullible masses" take a theory as gospel truth, and refuse to entertain any other notion, that's when I start talking about "the gullible masses", and closed-mindedness.

First, I am so happy to have made you glad that I agree. However, to perhaps dampen your elation, I am agreeing with what Mr. Mushroom said only. He is correct with what he said and that is the conspiracy theorists see only that side of a conspiracy which relates to their particular expertise. That is the position they will take and espouse.

I, however, saw with my own two little beady eyes, the airplanes fully loaded with jet fuel fly into the two towers and the towers fall to the ground thereafter. The buildings imploded from the top, not from the bottom, ergo no basement theory is going to hold any sway with my opinion.

Is my opinion watertight? Not at all, but it is my opinion and nobody has presented anything that has made me change it. Your discussion about "gullible masses" has nothing whatsoever to do with the structure failure and is, therefore, not even on topic.

Few of your posts are laced with hard facts and that one is no exception.

Exactly....

So now carry on the with that logic....

The russian says nuke from his knowledge...

The industrial engineers says structural failure....

The demo expert says, control demo.....

So basically all these theories have blinders on...they see only what they want to see and are based on "limited" knowledge.

It seems Mr. Mushroom has his head screwed on straight.

I'm glad that you agree. So, therefore, your subscribing to the official line is just as based on theory as any alternative opinion.

My stance has always been that there are unanswered questions and anomalies, and no theory, including the official one, is watertight.

When "the gullible masses" take a theory as gospel truth, and refuse to entertain any other notion, that's when I start talking about "the gullible masses", and closed-mindedness.

First, I am so happy to have made you glad that I agree. However, to perhaps dampen your elation, I am agreeing with what Mr. Mushroom said only. He is correct with what he said and that is the conspiracy theorists see only that side of a conspiracy which relates to their particular expertise. That is the position they will take and espouse.

I, however, saw with my own two little beady eyes, the airplanes fully loaded with jet fuel fly into the two towers and the towers fall to the ground thereafter. The buildings imploded from the top, not from the bottom, ergo no basement theory is going to hold any sway with my opinion.

Is my opinion watertight? Not at all, but it is my opinion and nobody has presented anything that has made me change it. Your discussion about "gullible masses" has nothing whatsoever to do with the structure failure and is, therefore, not even on topic.

Few of your posts are laced with hard facts and that one is no exception.

I wasn't offering hard facts, I was offering opinion......your point about the post having no hard facts was for what?

Your observation about my post, is not on topic either.

However, I'm glad that you realise that your opinion is not watertight. Noone's is, otherwise there would be no debate as a watertight explanation could hardly be argued.

I haven't seen anyone on this forum actually endorse the nuke theory.

Here's one "hard fact" that remains a curiosity: "The airplanes fully loaded with jet fuel fly into the two towers". The floors that were hit were engulfed in flames, and those flames, intensely hot, have been blamed for at least some of the structural failure...yet a passport on board survived.

This passport angle may have nothing to do with the cause of the destruction.....unless you consider that the passport was a convenient piece of evidence to point to the perpetrators.

If that is so, then something is amiss.

I would like to read your take on the passport surviving the inferno.

I wasn't offering hard facts, I was offering opinion......your point about the post having no hard facts was for what?

Your observation about my post, is not on topic either.

However, I'm glad that you realise that your opinion is not watertight. Noone's is, otherwise there would be no debate as a watertight explanation could hardly be argued.

I haven't seen anyone on this forum actually endorse the nuke theory.

Here's one "hard fact" that remains a curiosity: "The airplanes fully loaded with jet fuel fly into the two towers". The floors that were hit were engulfed in flames, and those flames, intensely hot, have been blamed for at least some of the structural failure...yet a passport on board survived.

This passport angle may have nothing to do with the cause of the destruction.....unless you consider that the passport was a convenient piece of evidence to point to the perpetrators.

If that is so, then something is amiss.

I would like to read your take on the passport surviving the inferno.

My response to your post was to try and answer your questions. What I said was..."Few of your posts are laced with hard facts and that one is no exception." In your case that is a general statement covering nearly all of your posts.

Now on to the passport conundrum which seems to occupy so much of your time. Here is my take on what happened.

The holder of the passport, one Satam Al-Suqami, was on the flight deck with the pilot at the time the aircraft hit the building. Mr. Al Suqami had the pocket in his left front shirt pocket, as people are likely to do from time to time. Since Mr. Al Suqami was not piloting the aircraft, he would not have been wearing a seat belt and, when the aircraft made it's sudden stop upon hitting the building, Mr. Al Suqami did not, flying forward, shirt pocket and all, into and possibly even nearly through the building.

At some point through his journey into the building, Mr. Al Suqami met with solid resistance, thus ending his life and depriving the world of any children he might have been able to sire. However, his passport, having a mind of it's own so to speak, dislodged itself from his pocket and flew either over, around, under or through the solid resistance he met and careened out the other side of the building with other debris from the aircraft.

With Mr. Al Suqami being one of the first to become intimately acquainted with the WTC, he would have preceeded the fire, thereby saving his passport from the holocaust that followed when the jet fuel erupted behind him.

Now, this is only my theory about the events surrounding the mysterious passport but it is as possible as any conspiracy theory you or anybody else can come up with, and it is infinitely more believable.

I would like to read your take on the passport surviving the inferno.

A lot of things survived including 100s of IDs, driver’s licenses and other documents. There is nothing startling about a passport being one of them.

Here's one "hard fact" that remains a curiosity: "The airplanes fully loaded with jet fuel fly into the two towers". The floors that were hit were engulfed in flames, and those flames, intensely hot, have been blamed for at least some of the structural failure...yet a passport on board survived.

This passport angle may have nothing to do with the cause of the destruction.....unless you consider that the passport was a convenient piece of evidence to point to the perpetrators.

If that is so, then something is amiss.

I would like to read your take on the passport surviving the inferno.

As is often the case in massive explosions, debris gets blown far away from the impact area.

I wasn't offering hard facts, I was offering opinion......your point about the post having no hard facts was for what?

Your observation about my post, is not on topic either.

However, I'm glad that you realise that your opinion is not watertight. Noone's is, otherwise there would be no debate as a watertight explanation could hardly be argued.

I haven't seen anyone on this forum actually endorse the nuke theory.

Here's one "hard fact" that remains a curiosity: "The airplanes fully loaded with jet fuel fly into the two towers". The floors that were hit were engulfed in flames, and those flames, intensely hot, have been blamed for at least some of the structural failure...yet a passport on board survived.

This passport angle may have nothing to do with the cause of the destruction.....unless you consider that the passport was a convenient piece of evidence to point to the perpetrators.

If that is so, then something is amiss.

I would like to read your take on the passport surviving the inferno.

My response to your post was to try and answer your questions. What I said was..."Few of your posts are laced with hard facts and that one is no exception." In your case that is a general statement covering nearly all of your posts.

Now on to the passport conundrum which seems to occupy so much of your time. Here is my take on what happened.

The holder of the passport, one Satam Al-Suqami, was on the flight deck with the pilot at the time the aircraft hit the building. Mr. Al Suqami had the pocket in his left front shirt pocket, as people are likely to do from time to time. Since Mr. Al Suqami was not piloting the aircraft, he would not have been wearing a seat belt and, when the aircraft made it's sudden stop upon hitting the building, Mr. Al Suqami did not, flying forward, shirt pocket and all, into and possibly even nearly through the building.

At some point through his journey into the building, Mr. Al Suqami met with solid resistance, thus ending his life and depriving the world of any children he might have been able to sire. However, his passport, having a mind of it's own so to speak, dislodged itself from his pocket and flew either over, around, under or through the solid resistance he met and careened out the other side of the building with other debris from the aircraft.

With Mr. Al Suqami being one of the first to become intimately acquainted with the WTC, he would have preceeded the fire, thereby saving his passport from the holocaust that followed when the jet fuel erupted behind him.

Now, this is only my theory about the events surrounding the mysterious passport but it is as possible as any conspiracy theory you or anybody else can come up with, and it is infinitely more believable.

I could not absolutely discount that scenario....unless we were to consider that the plane Suqami was supposedly on was the plane that hit the north tower.......which hit the central column of the building and only a charred fragment of the landing gear emerged out the other side.

Which makes your scenario tenuously feasible, but not very credible.....certainly not, as you assert, "infinitely more believable".

Here's one "hard fact" that remains a curiosity: "The airplanes fully loaded with jet fuel fly into the two towers". The floors that were hit were engulfed in flames, and those flames, intensely hot, have been blamed for at least some of the structural failure...yet a passport on board survived.

This passport angle may have nothing to do with the cause of the destruction.....unless you consider that the passport was a convenient piece of evidence to point to the perpetrators.

If that is so, then something is amiss.

I would like to read your take on the passport surviving the inferno.

As is often the case in massive explosions, debris gets blown far away from the impact area.

It wasn't a "massive explosion", it was a masive impact that burst into flame. A very different scenario.

But lets say that the impact caused an explosion, resulting in debris being "blown away"; Consider the inertia/impetus of a small paper document. Even if there was a "massive explosion", paper would not travel "far away", it just doesn't have the mass, and would also suffer heat damage.

Mr. Harcourt:

Mr. Al Suqami was "believed" to be on the aircraft that hit the North Tower but what does that prove? What if most of the plane hit the central core of the building? Mr. Al-Suqami might have taken a detour when he went through the windshield and missed the core completely. For all you know, he might have even survived the impact and subsequent fall from the 94th floor and lost his passport two blocks away when he was running off. Stranger things have happened.

I have provided my possible scenario. Koheesti has provided another.

Where is yours?

We await with bated breath your explanation as to how the mysterious passport got where it did.

As is often the case in massive explosions, debris gets blown far away from the impact area.

It wasn't a "massive explosion", it was a masive impact that burst into flame. A very different scenario.

But lets say that the impact caused an explosion, resulting in debris being "blown away"; Consider the inertia/impetus of a small paper document. Even if there was a "massive explosion", paper would not travel "far away", it just doesn't have the mass, and would also suffer heat damage.

A passport would be better described as a booklet, not a "small paper document". Try throwing it across the room. It's semi-hard cover will allow it to go much, much further than just paper. And when I wrote "blown away" I didn't mean by the wind. Although the strong wind at that height would come into play after the explosion took it away from the point of impact and outside the building. This all happened at the height of several hundred meters. I'm not sure where they found it but a few blocks away wouldn't surprise me. Did they say the passport wasn't damaged in any way? If so, now that would be suspicious.

As is often the case in massive explosions, debris gets blown far away from the impact area.

It wasn't a "massive explosion", it was a masive impact that burst into flame. A very different scenario.

But lets say that the impact caused an explosion, resulting in debris being "blown away"; Consider the inertia/impetus of a small paper document. Even if there was a "massive explosion", paper would not travel "far away", it just doesn't have the mass, and would also suffer heat damage.

A passport would be better described as a booklet, not a "small paper document". Try throwing it across the room. It's semi-hard cover will allow it to go much, much further than just paper. And when I wrote "blown away" I didn't mean by the wind. Although the strong wind at that height would come into play after the explosion took it away from the point of impact and outside the building. This all happened at the height of several hundred meters. I'm not sure where they found it but a few blocks away wouldn't surprise me. Did they say the passport wasn't damaged in any way? If so, now that would be suspicious.

I took "blown away" as you intended...yes it was obvious. Where did you get the impression that I interpreted it to mean "by the wind".....I actually thought the wind would be your next straw to grasp at.

I accept your differentiation between "paper document" and "booklet with a semi hard cover".....I'm not sure if the difference is significant in this case.

I read that the passport was found on .... I can't recall the name of the street, but I'm sure the name began with "V". Your local topographical knowledge is sure to be better than mine, so you tell me if where it was found was realisitic, all things considered.

As is often the case in massive explosions, debris gets blown far away from the impact area.

It wasn't a "massive explosion", it was a masive impact that burst into flame. A very different scenario.

But lets say that the impact caused an explosion, resulting in debris being "blown away"; Consider the inertia/impetus of a small paper document. Even if there was a "massive explosion", paper would not travel "far away", it just doesn't have the mass, and would also suffer heat damage.

A passport would be better described as a booklet, not a "small paper document". Try throwing it across the room. It's semi-hard cover will allow it to go much, much further than just paper. And when I wrote "blown away" I didn't mean by the wind. Although the strong wind at that height would come into play after the explosion took it away from the point of impact and outside the building. This all happened at the height of several hundred meters. I'm not sure where they found it but a few blocks away wouldn't surprise me. Did they say the passport wasn't damaged in any way? If so, now that would be suspicious.

Koheesti:

The passport would not travel any farther than a properly made paper airplane and I expect that is a pastime Harcourt puts a lot of his energy into.

Mr. Harcourt:

Mr. Al Suqami was "believed" to be on the aircraft that hit the North Tower but what does that prove? What if most of the plane hit the central core of the building? Mr. Al-Suqami might have taken a detour when he went through the windshield and missed the core completely. For all you know, he might have even survived the impact and subsequent fall from the 94th floor and lost his passport two blocks away when he was running off. Stranger things have happened.

I have provided my possible scenario. Koheesti has provided another.

Where is yours?

We await with bated breath your explanation as to how the mysterious passport got where it did.

OK, I see you are having fun...taking the piss as they say in Britain.

Offering sarcastic unrealistic theories may go some way towards saying to me, "your ideas are nutty", but actually emphasises the point that you do not have any realsitic answers to the questions.

I offer my much more realistic scenario regarding the passport (Which scenario does not disclude that the planes flew into the towers); The passport was planted so that there would be "proof" of who the perpetrators were.

That scenario does not preclude that the accused were the actual perpetrators, either.

Mr. Harcourt:

Mr. Al Suqami was "believed" to be on the aircraft that hit the North Tower but what does that prove? What if most of the plane hit the central core of the building? Mr. Al-Suqami might have taken a detour when he went through the windshield and missed the core completely. For all you know, he might have even survived the impact and subsequent fall from the 94th floor and lost his passport two blocks away when he was running off. Stranger things have happened.

I have provided my possible scenario. Koheesti has provided another.

Where is yours?

We await with bated breath your explanation as to how the mysterious passport got where it did.

OK, I see you are having fun...taking the piss as they say in Britain.

Offering sarcastic unrealistic theories may go some way towards saying to me, "your ideas are nutty", but actually emphasises the point that you do not have any realsitic answers to the questions.

I offer my much more realistic scenario regarding the passport (Which scenario does not disclude that the planes flew into the towers); The passport was planted so that there would be "proof" of who the perpetrators were.

That scenario does not preclude that the accused were the actual perpetrators, either.

I know, I know, guys. I have to ask the question anyway.

Harcourt, who do you claim planted the passport on "V" street?

Why would they need a passport to identify the perpetrators when they have them on video at the airport getting boarding passes? Do you seriously believe the mass media would not have uncovered a sinister plot by now if there even was one. The hatred of GWB knows no bounds in some quarters and many would like nothing better than to uncover and publicize a plot hatched by anybody in the Bush Administration.

You really need to let this one go.

The passport thing is a bit strange but not impossible when looking at all the paper stuff that survived the crash of the twin towers, (will post a picture later).

The N.I.S.T report raises a few questions.

The one (If I remember well) is one of the things on my mind is that the building would collapse (in their computer model) if the speed of the plane was raised to 540 Miles and hour (please don't attack me on the right number as it has been some time I read through the report). The Massachusetts institute of technology calculated the speed much lower.

The Russian guy raises an interesting question to me, were there or not plans in place to demolish these building in case of some calamity?

This sounds reasonable to me, you build some frikkin high tower and someone asks how to bring it down when it is needed and demands some kind of protocol in place.

The people on the top floors could not be rescued, the fires could not be put out quickly, there was a possibility that the towers could be partly crushed and there would not be any way to restore them.

The protocol was activated and the towers were brought down using a controlled demolition. Knowing the public would not accept such decision, N.I.S.T was told to come up with a theory that would blame the collapse on the fires and weakened structure.

The Nukulaa theory I do not really buy, but a plan in place to do a controlled demolition in case needed does make more sense to me and could explain why these towers went down.