Verge
Let's hug it out
The steel doesn't need to melt, only soften. Softening steel loses strength precipitously.
I've just convinced myself to that 9/11 is a conspiracy
- Thread starter Ondskan
- Start date
- Status
The steel doesn't need to melt, only soften. Softening steel loses strength precipitously.
holy king
Deity
6 pages of discussion with a total nutcase...reminds me of the young earth creationist thread
seriously, there is no way the wtc was blown up with explosives and that was succesfully covered up for 6 years...
and dont you think that if it really was physically impossible that the planes brought the buildings to collapse there'd be real scientist around the world claiming that and not just some people on the internetz using obviously wrong assumptions?
yeah, i'm a neocon too
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070923114726AAgmIwt
There's a link there to some education/Uni page and what not.
Was 2,5k not 3,5k Fahrenheit as I thought. Ya what ever, I just don't understand why you people can't find this . .. .. .. . out for yourselves. Stop painting people as liars without even doing a MINIMAL amount of research on it.
I got bashed from two sides in this thread for example, one saying that indeed bridges can get destroyed by resonance and one saying that it's impossible both pointing in the direction of WTC somehow or trying to say that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Seriously though, most of you don't know better than me. I'd even say most of you know less about physics, engineering and politics than I do.
The few counter arguments such as showing evidence of what is belived to be the largest building in the world ever demolitioned with explosives was very interesting though (How much explosives were needed, how long it took). I'll ask around about that as I don't have an answer to that. Just as you probably don't have an answer to how the hijackers got into the plane, how CIA was ignored, why the debries was removed so fast against all normal protocols and why the people in the 9/11 comission are critical of their own report.
Ofcourse there's more critical about the theory I belive in than you've written. For example why the fire and explosion in both towers from the planes crashing didn't randomly set of the explosions despite that it's plausible to assume that some of the dynamite or what ever might have been used probably would've heated up and exploded. Instead we see a systematic destruction of the building as if there was no prior explosion or as if the explosion/jet fuel itself indeed did cause the destruction.
I say there's alot of holes where ever you look and all I tried to do was to make a poll to see what holes people turn their eye blind to on this particular forum.
Cheers.
There's a link there to some education/Uni page and what not.
Was 2,5k not 3,5k Fahrenheit as I thought. Ya what ever, I just don't understand why you people can't find this . .. .. .. . out for yourselves. Stop painting people as liars without even doing a MINIMAL amount of research on it.
I got bashed from two sides in this thread for example, one saying that indeed bridges can get destroyed by resonance and one saying that it's impossible both pointing in the direction of WTC somehow or trying to say that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Seriously though, most of you don't know better than me. I'd even say most of you know less about physics, engineering and politics than I do.
The few counter arguments such as showing evidence of what is belived to be the largest building in the world ever demolitioned with explosives was very interesting though (How much explosives were needed, how long it took). I'll ask around about that as I don't have an answer to that. Just as you probably don't have an answer to how the hijackers got into the plane, how CIA was ignored, why the debries was removed so fast against all normal protocols and why the people in the 9/11 comission are critical of their own report.
Ofcourse there's more critical about the theory I belive in than you've written. For example why the fire and explosion in both towers from the planes crashing didn't randomly set of the explosions despite that it's plausible to assume that some of the dynamite or what ever might have been used probably would've heated up and exploded. Instead we see a systematic destruction of the building as if there was no prior explosion or as if the explosion/jet fuel itself indeed did cause the destruction.
I say there's alot of holes where ever you look and all I tried to do was to make a poll to see what holes people turn their eye blind to on this particular forum.
Cheers.
holy king
Deity
one question: how would you cover up such a conspiracy?
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
Fake IDs and poor communication between intelligence agencies. If you want to make the claim the government was incompetent, well then you will find you will have alot more people that will support you. But incompetence doesn't mean it was an 'inside job'.
No basis for that claim. Look at Assertation #6 here:
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf
They are critical of some aspects of the report, but nothing they are critical of supports the theories about an 'inside job', only that certain people were probably trying to cover up their incompetence. You are comparing apples to oranges. Following your logic it would be like me trying to do this: "OMG, I found an error in this history book about WWII, therefore I can throw out the entire book and state everything in it is false and make up my own historical facts!"
LesCanadiens
Deity
You admit that there are huge holes in your conspiracy theory, yet you remain somehow convinced that it is true?/
holy king
Deity
a true believer, isnt he?
And you don't admit that there's holes in the theory you support?
Or is everything in that case coinsidence and incompetence?
There's holes in every theory untill it's proven and even then it may be changed if the proof becomes revalidated.
I'm not a true "beliver" as if I belive the theory is bulletproof. I've from the start just said that I support it more than the official one and despite the time and time again that people say "wouldn't scientists say something then?" I've presented sites with scientists saying "something" then.
Again this is just going in circles. What is your point?
Or is everything in that case coinsidence and incompetence?
There's holes in every theory untill it's proven and even then it may be changed if the proof becomes revalidated.
I'm not a true "beliver" as if I belive the theory is bulletproof. I've from the start just said that I support it more than the official one and despite the time and time again that people say "wouldn't scientists say something then?" I've presented sites with scientists saying "something" then.
Again this is just going in circles. What is your point?
LesCanadiens
Deity
When you're going to assert something that goes against what a huge mountain of evidence indicates, you have to have some pretty damn good evidence to back up your assertions. You've admitted you have none. If you want to ask me some specific questions, I'd be happy to debunk your beliefs for you.
holy king
Deity
thats no answer to the question how such a big conspiracy could be effectively covered up...
Where have I admitted that I have none?
Really this is getting tirering.
You win, happy?
And I have no idea how conspiracies are covered up.
How was Enron covered up. Everyone had a piece of the puzzle and was happy with the reality presented to them so they kept their little piece because it wouldn't fit in anywhere? I don't know.
In this thread I've debunked two assumptions already (not really related, but still) and get no credit for that. This is far more complicated for *me* to debunk to you, throwing links at each other won't do it and im not physicist. Research yourself and if you disagree leave it at that. Seriously, what more can I say, answer me that?
Really this is getting tirering.
You win, happy?
And I have no idea how conspiracies are covered up.
How was Enron covered up. Everyone had a piece of the puzzle and was happy with the reality presented to them so they kept their little piece because it wouldn't fit in anywhere? I don't know.
In this thread I've debunked two assumptions already (not really related, but still) and get no credit for that. This is far more complicated for *me* to debunk to you, throwing links at each other won't do it and im not physicist. Research yourself and if you disagree leave it at that. Seriously, what more can I say, answer me that?
LesCanadiens
Deity
So not only have you not provided any evidence to back up your assertions, but you're completely unwilling to do so?
What did you come here to do? Did you come here expecting us to fawn over how awesome you are for thinking Bush is an evil neocon fascist who murdered his own people? Were you surprised when people doubted you? I don't know what you expect. Do you expect us to believe every word you say when you present no evidence to back up your absurd claims?
You're acting like little more than a petulant teenaged girl. Did you really expect us to not discuss the validity of the claims you've made? That's what we do. When someone presents a theory that is so wildly absurd, we take a look at what's behind it. When we tried to do that with you, you cried foul and shouted "ZOMG IM LEAVING U GUYS ARE NOT NICE."
holy king
Deity
planting explosives in the wtc isnt particularly something that can be done silently and secretly...
you would have to drill holes into the concrete which wouldnt be very silent...
that part of the conspiracy alone would involve dozens of people, and somebody would have recognized the strange activity at any time of the day (or night)
well, bush is an evil neocon who sent his own people into death... the fascist part is nonsense though
I'd just like to quote this, as they say, for truth. It sums up fairly succinctly my primary problems with this facet of the 9/11 conspiracies. As with most conspiracy theories I disagree with, it comes down to an issue with lack of evidence, improbability, and a downright lack of common sense.
I used to believe for a few years. Then I realized what little actual evidence there was, and how every single con article, etc, I read was at least twice as convincing as the best pro article put out. Such asymmetry in a debate is rare when the proposition is at least credible. It seems less an issue of two differing viewpoints on cloudy knowledge and more one side being flat out incorrect and misleading.
@ the two above DNK. You'll probably say something about this to but the landlord had leased the entire towers some days ago. Also the employes were moved around and even evacuated several times during that time (probably because the earlier "bomb threats")
And you LesCanadiens is trying to debate by painting a false reality and then debating how wrong my assumption in this reality is.
I haven't said Bush is an evil necon fascist who murdered his own people.
Stop putting words into my mouth. Why are you doing that? It's the second time in just a few minutes.
Does that make you look better you think?
Bah I have nothing more to say really. Do you think that I am nice for still replying to this thread? Would you reply to someone who basicly called you a lying fool and crybaby?
What ever. Are you done yet?
And you LesCanadiens is trying to debate by painting a false reality and then debating how wrong my assumption in this reality is.
I haven't said Bush is an evil necon fascist who murdered his own people.
Stop putting words into my mouth. Why are you doing that? It's the second time in just a few minutes.
Does that make you look better you think?
Bah I have nothing more to say really. Do you think that I am nice for still replying to this thread? Would you reply to someone who basicly called you a lying fool and crybaby?
What ever. Are you done yet?
holy king
Deity
i have the impression this gets closed soon
LesCanadiens
Deity
I have no real idea what you're talking about; you need to be more specific. The second part of that is absolute gibberish, but if you could explain exactly what you mean by either the lease or the evacuation, that'd be great, mmmkay?
I said it once, and it was hyperbole. You know, a literary device? Stop skipping high school English.
And if you don't like being called a crybaby (OMG I didn't say that, stop putting words in my mouth!), stop acting like one.
MjM
Deity
9/11 was an inside job.
What are you suggesting? Source for the evacuations?
Yeah me to. That's why I said it shouldn't have been turned into a discussion. I guess some people find it fun to ruin threads they think are stupid.
Funny though that the polls show such a difference to other polls made out there where 35%~ roughly belive it was either an inside job or that at least the investigation is a failure and needs to be done again. (according to a CNN poll the numbers are 65% that belive its a cover up).
Sadly the 15~% here didn't even dare to voice their opinion because of the constant bashing and insulting from people like Les.
I just wanted it to be a poll but now that it's gone off-topic I'll ask a moderator to close it as you said.
@ DNK :
http://web.archive.org/web/20010914235852/people.aol.com/people/special/0,11859,174592-5,00.html
Funny though that the polls show such a difference to other polls made out there where 35%~ roughly belive it was either an inside job or that at least the investigation is a failure and needs to be done again. (according to a CNN poll the numbers are 65% that belive its a cover up).
Sadly the 15~% here didn't even dare to voice their opinion because of the constant bashing and insulting from people like Les.
I just wanted it to be a poll but now that it's gone off-topic I'll ask a moderator to close it as you said.
What does this mean Les?
@ DNK :
http://web.archive.org/web/20010914235852/people.aol.com/people/special/0,11859,174592-5,00.html
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
