Must see video of 9/11...

[Tank_Guy#3]

everyone sould be thankfull that you live in a country that allows you to express your opinion.
if you want to dissagree with tis countrys' leaders mabe you sould go to china and try to 'express yourself'.
see what happens....

Is this...Could it be...Another one of the select few that see's the light of the reason I see?

@ Cloud (as well as those that appear to agree with me):

 

[Ovulator]

it was a conspiracy, an international conspiracy of islamic fundamentalists in attempt to bring down the american economy for supporting israel. how much more of a conspiracy theory do you need?

and how can you simply ignore 'facts' that this video gets blatantly wrong. they state a b52 hit the empire state building, that NEVER happened. it was a b25 a significantly smaller plane. it goes to show that these guys can't mine their facts right, so how does the rest of the video hold any credibility?

 

[Ovulator]

also, everyone should watch the first version too:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194

though this version is so poorly made with so many glaring falacies that the intro has been largely excluded from the new one.

 

[Xenocrates]

it was a conspiracy, an international conspiracy of islamic fundamentalists in attempt to bring down the american economy for supporting israel. how much more of a conspiracy theory do you need?

How do you know that?

Did you see the massive dust clouds emerging at speed from the collapsing buildings?

Did you see the buildings collapsing symetrically?

Did you see how fast and smooth the collapses were?

Did you hear the eyewitness reports?


If you did, then what you saw, my friends, are controlled demolitions.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

can you prove there where explosives other than with video and eyewitness accounts

people also claimed seeing a plane hit the pentagon but you ignore that and then refer to people claiming that the towers falling LOOKED like it a controlled explosion

 

[Xenocrates]

can you prove there where explosives other than with video and eyewitness accounts

people also claimed seeing a plane hit the pentagon but you ignore that and then refer to people claiming that the towers falling LOOKED like it a controlled explosion

Firstly I don't deny that a plane hit the pentagon.

Secondly, I don't care about the eyewitness reports describing the collapses as being identical to a demolition. The first-hand eyewitness reports are of multiple loud explosions, heavy cooling gear 'vanishing' and damage to the lower part of the buildings totally inconsistant with a jet fuel fireball.

Thirdly, yes we can all prove that controlled demolitions took place. There is no other possibility. Simple as that.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

i apoligize with saying you supported the pentagon theory, all the last couple of pages blurred into the conspiracy supporters/detractors sort of thing

secondly, where are pictures, if there was damage show them

lastly how can we all prove there where explosions when there are no pics, videos, or accounts of people seeing the bombs.

you are taking the first hand accounts from ordinary people on the outside at more face value than it is worth

 

[Ovulator]

in a controlled demolition the building collapses from the bottom. the wtc collapsed from the part above the plane crash down.

 

[Xenocrates]

in a controlled demolition the building collapses from the bottom. the wtc collapsed from the part above the plane crash down.

No, in most controlled demolitions the collapse starts at the bottom.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

so your justify the lack of evidence by claiming it was an exception

 

[Bugfatty300]

No, in most controlled demolitions the collapse starts at the bottom.

Which doesn't make sense. The collapse took place where the planes hit.

How would those who placed the charges know the exact location of where the planes would hit?

How would an entricate series of demolition charges stay intact when the jet liners slammed into the buildings and then sitting for all that time in burning jet fuel?

 

[Xenocrates]

i apoligize with saying you supported the pentagon theory, all the last couple of pages blurred into the conspiracy supporters/detractors sort of thing

secondly, where are pictures, if there was damage show them

lastly how can we all prove there where explosions when there are no pics, videos, or accounts of people seeing the bombs.

you are taking the first hand accounts from ordinary people on the outside at more face value than it is worth

Everyone is an ordinary person, I don't believe in authority, and I don't believe that WTC staff that were extremely familiar with the building were wrong just because they don't talk 'proper' and wear suits.

The absence of any other even slightly plausible explanation is what gives me the confidence to use the word 'prove'.

There's a concept in science called Bahramdipity.

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/Sommer.pdf

“The stupor of authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”

Bahramdipity is caused by a field eminating from authority figures. In every area of science, good research has been abandoned/supressed because someone in authority would have disaproved. The most famous example of this Milkan's oil drop experiment. For decades, scientists measured the charge on an electron differently from Milikan, but they were overawed by his bahramdipity field and published only the results that matched his. Aristotle counted human teeth and found that women and slaves had fewer, being inferior. For millenia this went uncorrected even though it's very simple to disprove. One of my teachers even claimed that women had fewer teeth in the 80's (that's 1980's not 80's BC!)

What's going on here is similar. Some authoritative organisations in the USA have published a psuedo-scientific account (the official explanation) of the collapses that does not withstand a moment's scrutiny. Yet many of us are prepared to believe it. Aristotle would be proud of them!

 

[Mr. Dictator]

well i was refering to the fact that many common citizens can look at a building falling and think it was demolited

where are trained demoliters at saying these things

the point is a couple of people on the street dont have the insight to say what happened

and FYI, i didnt mean that i accepted the answers by the gov't i accept that of experts

 

[capslock]

also, everyone should watch the first version too:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194

though this version is so poorly made with so many glaring falacies that the intro has been largely excluded from the new one.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This one is sooo much better than the second. What a freaking ******.

 

[Ovulator]

No, in most controlled demolitions the collapse starts at the bottom.

i would respond in the same way as mr. dictator did here:

so your justify the lack of evidence by claiming it was an exception

@xenocrates
your justification is that simply because the authoritative figure stated one conclusion that that conclusion must be wrong?

edited for clarification.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

no, im saying he cant just count a firsthand account from some untrained bystander

im saying NO ONE knows for sure what happened, its just most likely not explosives

 

[Xenocrates]

Which doesn't make sense. The collapse took place where the planes hit.

How would those who placed the charges know the exact location of where the planes would hit?

Simple, they didn't need to. They just place many explosives and detonated the ones that they wanted.

How would an entricate series of demolition charges stay intact when the jet liners slammed into the buildings and then sitting for all that time in burning jet fuel?

The jet fuel burnt off very quickly as it's required to by the laws of chemistry. The specific heat of the jet fuel was insufficient to raise the temperature of the [thermally] very conductive and massive steel frame sufficiently to cause sufficient weakening. As far as the non-ignition of the explosives by this jet fuel fireball is concerned, that depends on which explosives were used and how they were placed. I will not assume that the explosives were of a sort commonly known by the public. Since I wasn't there, I also can't tell you how they were placed.

 

[Ovulator]

no, im saying he cant just count a firsthand account from some untrained bystander

im saying NO ONE knows for sure what happened, its just most likely not explosives

woops that was not directed at you, but as a response to xenocrates. which he still seems to be ignoring.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

my bad, i could of swore that you responded to me

 

[Xenocrates]

Lol fellas I'll have trained my typing a LOT after this!

your justification is that simply because the authoritative figure stated one conclusion that that conclusion must be wrong?

no, im saying he cant just count a firsthand account from some untrained bystander

I'm saying that being familiar with the building, at the scene at the time and seeing what happened made these people better experts than the 'suits'. Besides which, they often spoke before the party line had been determined and were therefore unaffected by the bahramdipity field. The power of suggestion is very high indeed, and these people were not exposed to it.

im saying NO ONE knows for sure what happened, its just most likely not explosives

You are discounting the only plausible explanation. Why?