- Status
So... countless believable groups have done countless studies and performed actual scientific analysis of the available facts, and they are all completely wrong (hey, they got fooled by the cabal or traitors -- Harvey, can you cut and past it in here? 
) .... Instead, we should believe these cooky truther type sites and their pseudo-science "facts"?
No thanks, I already found a good tin-foil hat supplier
) .... Instead, we should believe these cooky truther type sites and their pseudo-science "facts"?No thanks, I already found a good tin-foil hat supplier
Posts like this one always force me to stop and look around to try and spot the lunatics near me. I know you're always out there somewhere, but I really wish you'd carry signs that say "I'm batshit fucking crazy, please stand back."
Appledrop
Platinum Member
- Aug 25, 2004
- 2,340
- 0
- 0
its quite funny how sceptics have the largest share of the vote in the poll, yet 90% of posts are from OMG TIN FOIL HATS 4 U HAHA
i am fully convinced all these people decrying `truthers` simply bash and reiterate the lies to convince themselves that 9/11 really was done by angry afghanis.
after all, i too wish that 9/11 was not a false flag attack, but unfortunately, all the evidence points to that being the case
i am fully convinced all these people decrying `truthers` simply bash and reiterate the lies to convince themselves that 9/11 really was done by angry afghanis.
after all, i too wish that 9/11 was not a false flag attack, but unfortunately, all the evidence points to that being the case
I think most people realize 9-11 was carried out by a bunch of angry Saudi's. They saw the biggest events unfold with their own eyes on live TV. Then watched as the leader of the group who organized it dicsussed it on video.
Now I am sure this is where somebody tells us Bin Laden is a CIA plant from the 80s and Bush personally detonated the explosives that really took down the towers after he remote controlled the planes and cruise missile that hit the pentagon all while reading a childs book in Florida to pre school kids. The man is a damned mastermind obviously!
umm, first of all, the hijackers and planners were not "Afghanis." That statement alone shows that you don't know the first thing about 9/11.
You certainly qualify as one who should be carrying a sign. Maybe T-shirts would be easier...?
rudder
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2000
- 19,441
- 86
- 91
By intentionally demolish do you mean that the owner decided that the building was not worth the loss of life that could occur if the fire dept tried to save the building? And by intentionally demolish do you mean to say that he felt the best course of action would be to get the fireman out of WTC7?
Because, in essence, that was what the owner of WTC7 was saying when he "intentionally demolished" WTC building 7.
Why do I get into these ridiculous threads?
maybe the building was sentient and collapsed out of sadness over the collapse of WTC1 & 2.
getting back to reality ...
why did the building collapse AT ALL ? wasn't struck by an airplane.
there was talk later in the day about demolishing it, Silverstein's statement "we'll have to pull it". he said that while talking about WTC7.
so ... do these buildings come pre-wired for demolition ?
the most fantasy wing-nut-ish conspiracy theories of all are the official explanations.
what is the official explanation for WTC7's collapse ? there's got to be something more than, "jet fuel from WTC1 & 2", or "it was damaged by debris from WTC1 & WTC2".
You're right. For people who understand physics, rely on fact and don't put their faith in conspiracy theories they read on the internet there are plenty of clues as to why the WTC collapsed.
QFT.
Maybe we could make these threads be a honey pot for conspiracy whack jobs, and ban them whenever they surface, like whack-a-mole!
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
Number1
Diamond Member
- Feb 24, 2006
- 7,881
- 549
- 126
kylebisme wrote = "These facts together prove that an outside force removed approximately 105 feet of structural resistance, though I understand that it is a fact which many find difficult to accept."
What force would that be?
Your poll is bullshit and to be fair answer #2 should have read:
I have faith in the theory that the official story stands in contradiction to demonstrable physical reality.
Stick your poll where it belong: up yours.
One more point, your post is littered with ridiculous spelling mistakes. If you want to appear credible, at least take the time to present your point of view properly.
What force would that be?
Your poll is bullshit and to be fair answer #2 should have read:
I have faith in the theory that the official story stands in contradiction to demonstrable physical reality.
Stick your poll where it belong: up yours.
One more point, your post is littered with ridiculous spelling mistakes. If you want to appear credible, at least take the time to present your point of view properly.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Hey friend,
Okay, here are some easy questions for you. #4 is most pertinent to our conversation right now.
1) If planes did not bring down the WTC, what did? How did it get there? A controlled demolition on the scale required by the WTC would have required thousands of pounds of explosives, miles (miles!) of detonation cord, and months of preparation. Have you ever seen videos of buildings when they're wired to come down? There is wire and explosives everywhere. In the WTC there was nothing. I hate to break it to you, but it would be nearly impossible for all of that stuff to be hidden.
2) What exactly blew up the building? Thermite? Thermite doesn't explode and, if this was a controlled demolition, why didn't the terrorists or whoever use real explosives rather than relying on something that has never been used to demolish a building before?
3) Who exactly was involved? At first glance, any sort of conspiracy greater than the planes implicates at least hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Knowledge of demolition, especially on the scale required to bring down the WTC is a rare commodity and would have been done by an expert. Again, that doesn't make it an impossibility, but if the "government" is involved are you accusing the NIST, FEMA, the military, the president, FDNY, the thousands of experts (both government and employed and not) who have independently concluded that the government is right, the NYPD, the hijackers, etc? Really? 21 guys versus thousands?
4) If the government is going to blow up a building, why do they concoct a complicated plan that involves hijacking a plane and slamming it into the building? There is WAAAY too much that could go wrong. What if the hijackers fail to take control of the plane? What if the plane misses the building? Why would they not make the cover story easier -- terrorists snuck truckloads of explosives into the building and blew it up? I mean, we already had an attack on the WTC which was exactly that, why not replicate it? PLUS, if you're going to go to the trouble of hijacking planes and slamming them into the building, why bother planting explosives? Why not load the planes with explosives? Why are there two high-risk operations being conducted simultaneously? This makes zero sense.
In the case of WTC7, why not hijack a 4th plane and hit it with that? If the government's intention was to make everyone believe that the planes brought down the WTC buildings, why leave #7 out? As you point out, it IS the most mysterious because, outside of falling rubble, it was not actually hit by anything. So... if you're planning this thing, why would you not simply hit the motherfucker with a plane, removing any doubt about why it came down? Why even make this a question? After planning such a massive operation, I don't see how the government could overlook something so simple as "oh, yeah we forgot to hit WTC 7 with anything, but we'll take it down with explosives... nobody will ask questions!"
5) Finally, I would ask you to simply outline a coherent theory about what happened on 9/11. The beauty of the true story is that it is a complete story. We know who was where and when. We know what they did, why they did it, and when they did it. Conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 are laughable because they aren't theories at all, they simply try to insert shadowy agents and figures into the gaps in our knowledge, they attack what they can and ignore the mountain of evidence that they cannot disprove. When one element of their charade is disproved, they simply flash to the next. We've seen this over and over again, so all I ask is that you explain to us who did it and why. Please. Once you attempt to do this, you'll realize that there is no coherence to your theory and that it's not a theory at all.
Okay, here are some easy questions for you. #4 is most pertinent to our conversation right now.
1) If planes did not bring down the WTC, what did? How did it get there? A controlled demolition on the scale required by the WTC would have required thousands of pounds of explosives, miles (miles!) of detonation cord, and months of preparation. Have you ever seen videos of buildings when they're wired to come down? There is wire and explosives everywhere. In the WTC there was nothing. I hate to break it to you, but it would be nearly impossible for all of that stuff to be hidden.
2) What exactly blew up the building? Thermite? Thermite doesn't explode and, if this was a controlled demolition, why didn't the terrorists or whoever use real explosives rather than relying on something that has never been used to demolish a building before?
3) Who exactly was involved? At first glance, any sort of conspiracy greater than the planes implicates at least hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Knowledge of demolition, especially on the scale required to bring down the WTC is a rare commodity and would have been done by an expert. Again, that doesn't make it an impossibility, but if the "government" is involved are you accusing the NIST, FEMA, the military, the president, FDNY, the thousands of experts (both government and employed and not) who have independently concluded that the government is right, the NYPD, the hijackers, etc? Really? 21 guys versus thousands?
4) If the government is going to blow up a building, why do they concoct a complicated plan that involves hijacking a plane and slamming it into the building? There is WAAAY too much that could go wrong. What if the hijackers fail to take control of the plane? What if the plane misses the building? Why would they not make the cover story easier -- terrorists snuck truckloads of explosives into the building and blew it up? I mean, we already had an attack on the WTC which was exactly that, why not replicate it? PLUS, if you're going to go to the trouble of hijacking planes and slamming them into the building, why bother planting explosives? Why not load the planes with explosives? Why are there two high-risk operations being conducted simultaneously? This makes zero sense.
In the case of WTC7, why not hijack a 4th plane and hit it with that? If the government's intention was to make everyone believe that the planes brought down the WTC buildings, why leave #7 out? As you point out, it IS the most mysterious because, outside of falling rubble, it was not actually hit by anything. So... if you're planning this thing, why would you not simply hit the motherfucker with a plane, removing any doubt about why it came down? Why even make this a question? After planning such a massive operation, I don't see how the government could overlook something so simple as "oh, yeah we forgot to hit WTC 7 with anything, but we'll take it down with explosives... nobody will ask questions!"
5) Finally, I would ask you to simply outline a coherent theory about what happened on 9/11. The beauty of the true story is that it is a complete story. We know who was where and when. We know what they did, why they did it, and when they did it. Conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 are laughable because they aren't theories at all, they simply try to insert shadowy agents and figures into the gaps in our knowledge, they attack what they can and ignore the mountain of evidence that they cannot disprove. When one element of their charade is disproved, they simply flash to the next. We've seen this over and over again, so all I ask is that you explain to us who did it and why. Please. Once you attempt to do this, you'll realize that there is no coherence to your theory and that it's not a theory at all.
Double Trouble says lots of experts say no conspiracy. He takes on arrogance with that but still, if he's right that puts the ball over in his court, no? What sensible person that knows nothing would argue with folk qualified to assess assuming there isn't some strong reason to believe those experts don't have some agenda of their own?
And I'm sure that if some nut says the sky is blue you will say it's green, right. Your post says nothing.
Total bullshit. A stopped watch is right twice a day. Your opinion of Dave means nothing much more than that it's yours.
An error of one fact does not mean a premise unrelated to it is false. Your opinion as to what he qualifies for indicates what you are qualified for, no? Your opinion is worthless because it doesn't create any reality. It just tells us what you think you see, another conspiracy.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter