I've just convinced myself to that 9/11 is a conspiracy

[LesCanadiens]

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.

That CNN poll is an internet poll and is not scientific in any way. For all we know, 9/11 deniers just spammed it so they could have something to validate their own preconceived beliefs. Resorting to an internet poll to validate your beliefs, and then applying the results as if they were an accurate scientific survey of the general population is just silly.

By the way, I'm curious as to how destroying these 9/11 truther threads by asking for evidence is going off topic. If you're not prepared to provide evidence to support your position, which is a wildly unpopular one, why even bother to start this discussion? If you didn't want a discussion, why did you start a topic on an internet message board, where people have the ability to reply?

 

[holy king]

so you dont want a discussion...
if you cant defend the things you believe in you should
1. consider why the hell you believe in them
2.keep your beliefs to yourself...

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.

its not off topic its a discussion about the conspiracy theory you presented in the OP
you're pathetic...

 

[Ondskan]

I'm not silly enough to belive polls on the internet <Shrugs> but maybe you can show me some better poll than the CNN one to support much lower figures?


Holy . .. .. .. . King.
Shut up seriously. Through this whole discussion I've tried to present to you and others the basis of my belifes. If you don't care for those that's your right but I've not just said "It's like this, period".

Can't you read?
And it's you who suggested that this thread would be closed soon or do you have amnesia aswell.
Why then should /would it be closed soon?

 

[holy king]

Can't you read?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

cant you?
this is adressing all the things you seem to believe about the incident ("the base of your belief") and debunking them...

Shut up seriously. Through this whole discussion I've tried to present to you and others the basis of my belifes. If you don't care for those that's your right but I've not just said "It's like this, period".

and people dont believe you and bring in counter arguments... oh my god we ruined the discussion...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion

 

[LesCanadiens]

I'm not silly enough to belive polls on the internet <Shrugs> but maybe you can show me some better poll than the CNN one to support much lower figures?

Why should I? The burden of proof is on you to prove your assertions, not me to prove that they're incorrect. And yes, you acted as if that poll was representative of the general population.

 

[Ondskan]

Sure sure. The one and only link you all have posted.
But you're saying I've not presented anything, why?
Why are you diverting the question?

Ofcourse I can read, I've read that article more times than you can imagine. I use it to compare the other studies that speak against it and similar articles.
I guess you're just to dumb to find those other articles though, it would make your argument alot stronger if you wouldn't repost the same article again.

An article that doesn't even adress explosives.

I have nothing to prove and I did not act as if this was a poll to represent the general population. Remind you that I said that there are several polls saying that around 35~% belive there's a conspiracy. The CNN poll being the one that goes even further. Really is my english that bad?


And the burden of proof is not on my assertions. Your side is yet to prove that you are right. It's impossible as the freakin debry was removed by someone. Where's the debry now? Why is it so hard to locate. Who the hell knows. But you can't prove . .. .. .. . mate. This topic though never was about proving anything, you and people like you took it there because they feel that they NEED to be right instead of listening to everyones opinions and making up their own mind after that.

 

[holy king]

An article that doesn't even adress explosives.

because there were none?
if you have already proven that there were no explosives necessary for what happened you dont have to disprove that they where there anymore...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockhams_razor
its that burden of proof thing again...

 

[Ondskan]

Claim: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

Does not count. It only says what the process is called when it is normal. It does not show that this process is normal in this case.
Anyway I've really said everything I can now. To each his own.

 

[holy king]

guess so...

 

[BasketCase]

Anyway I've really said everything I can now.

What you haven't said is "here's proof that these conspiracy theories DID happen".

Saying "they could have happened" or "these smoke plumes RESEMBLE explosives" or "the collapse APPEARS TO BE a controlled demolition" is nowhere near enough. You have to prove that the theories DID happen. That the smoke plumes WERE from explosives. That the collapse WAS a controlled demolition. And nobody has come anywhere close to doing this.

Here's a much simpler conspiracy theory for you knuckleheads: maybe a pair of planes DID hit the towers. Maybe the burning jet fuel weakened the steel structure enough to collapse the Towers. And maybe that's how the Towers were supposed to collapse, because nobody's ever done a controlled demolition on such a large building, and so we don't know what such a collapse would look like.

This conspiracy theory has a lot more than any other theory--because we've got actual videotape of a plane hitting the second tower, and eyewitnesses to BOTH impacts.

 

[brennan]

@@Ondskan
I don't think you can compare a bridge to a building as a building is vertical and a bridge is diagonal. There's also theories to that if enough people walk on a bridge in the same speed/rythm a frequency in the structure can literally demolition an entire bridge.
This theory has been busted repeatedly. Its impossible to do. Learn some science. Watch Mythbusters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(season_1)#Breakstep_Bridge

I hate to point this out, but it is possible JH as your mythbusters link says:

When this myth was revisited, it was proven plausible.

... and I suggest you read up on the Millenium Bridge.

 

[brennan]

We weren't lucky that it stood that long.
It couldn't have fallen faster than free-fall and it was only 50% slower.

It would be impossible for a building to collapse faster than 'free fall'. (Unless you strap rockets to it to help it come down. Which would be silly. )

 

[azzaman333]

I've just convinced myself to that 9/11 is a conspiracy

Wait, you think the American government is competent enough to pull off a huge terrorist attack without arousing any suspicion? The same government which decided the Iraq war was a good idea?

Sorry, but that just makes me

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

An other theory.

Plane flies into skyscraper, explodes, releasing tons of burning fuel. Fuel ignites other stuff and continues to burn for an amount of time. The heat weakens the integrity of the steel construction untill the weakest point gives in. The rest of the structure can't compensate and also collapses. Tower comes down.

Repeat for other tower.

Burning debris damages and sets of fire in WTC 7. This also burns for hours. The firefighters have trouble getting the equipment to the fires because the rumble of 2 big towers in hampering their operations. Since WTC 7 is evacuated and there's no risk of lives being lost it's decided that the manpower is more usefull elsewhere.

 

[LesCanadiens]

Sure sure. The one and only link you all have posted.
But you're saying I've not presented anything, why?
Why are you diverting the question?

Ofcourse I can read, I've read that article more times than you can imagine. I use it to compare the other studies that speak against it and similar articles.
I guess you're just to dumb to find those other articles though, it would make your argument alot stronger if you wouldn't repost the same article again.

An article that doesn't even adress explosives.

No, I'm not going to do your homework. Once again, if you're going to try to assert something that contradicts what is generally accepted in both academic and non-academic circles, it is up to you to prove it. It is not up to me to find sources for your little theories. You cannot turn to someone opposite you in a debate and demand that they provide citations for your own arguments. You're just being silly.

I have nothing to prove and I did not act as if this was a poll to represent the general population. Remind you that I said that there are several polls saying that around 35~% belive there's a conspiracy. The CNN poll being the one that goes even further. Really is my english that bad?

The only poll you have provided was an online poll which is not scientific in any way, and in all likelihood was spammed by more 9/11 deniers. If you have any other polls, please present them.

And the burden of proof is not on my assertions. Your side is yet to prove that you are right. It's impossible as the freakin debry was removed by someone. Where's the debry now? Why is it so hard to locate. Who the hell knows. But you can't prove . .. .. .. . mate. This topic though never was about proving anything, you and people like you took it there because they feel that they NEED to be right instead of listening to everyones opinions and making up their own mind after that.

Again, if you're going to put forth something that goes against a huge mountain of evidence, you have to prove it. If you're trying to convict the government in court, you have to prove they are guilty, I do not have to prove they are not guilty.

We've replied and engage in discussion. You're the one swearing and pouting because it hasn't gone your way. If you really didn't want all this discussion, and if you really didn't want to have your beliefs challenged, why did you start this thread in an internet message board where we have the ability to reply? Better yet, why are you on the internet?

 

[brennan]

one question: how would you cover up such a conspiracy?

The same way you'd cover up your President's sexual indiscretions. Oh, wait, they couldn't even do that.

 

[Dr Tiny]

A controlled demolition reuires more than explosives, the building must be prepped before hand by cutting through much of the supporting structure. None of the WTC survivors have ever mentioned anything like this happening.

Here is an even better site than the Popular Mechanics article, it is written by a Tim Wilkinson who works at the department of civil engineering, university of sydney. It is extremly well written for a layperson to understand.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

 

[brennan]

And you don't admit that there's holes in the theory you support?

Damn great planes. Check.
Bloody great blazing infernos. Check.
Buildings fall down. Check.

What holes?

And what's this nonsense about the debris being moved too fast? AFAIK it took months. Why would this be too fast?

 

[JerichoHill]

You need to prove that a controlled demolition occurred. We've cited the largest controlled demolition in history so far, which was far smaller. So we know how long, how much, how many people, are needed for a controlled demolition.

So you need to prove how a massive controlled demolition could be prepped in WTC without anyone knowing.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807

You yourself have admitted to being banned before. I believe that this is a troll thread, nothing new is being said, and you are not going to change your mind (either because you wont, or you are a troll).

Either way, this thread should be closed

 

[aronnax]

I've just convinced myself to that 9/11 is a conspiracy

Yes, America destroyed the Pride of NYC with thousands of people inside just so it can have a casus belli to invade a country for oil which is now costing the country more than ever.

Dont be silly.
Start being smart