Why bother trying to convince 9/11 truthers with logic and evidence?
If they listened to logic and evidence, they wouldn't be 9/11 truthers
If they listened to logic and evidence, they wouldn't be 9/11 truthers
9/11 conspiracies. Really, they still exist?
- Thread starter shadowstriker86
- Start date
Both planes crashed directly into the respective towers. The reason the second tower collapsed first is because the plane that hit it hit lower and more weight made it collapse first. Think of it like a hammer. Plus buildings that tall have a very complex structure that allow the building to stand with all the weight going downward. If you alter that weight a little bit (i.e. a 15,000 lb plane hitting it) it sways a little and slowly comprimises the structure. That causes the weight to collapse down and destroy the building.canadamus_prime said:
I'm still not buying it. But w/e I don't know why you're going to so much effort to convince me, I haven't said anything about who I really think attacked on 9/11 or anything. I'm respectfully keeping that to myself. If you REALLY want me to get into it, I can.Optix334 said:
The Gov't did release a report. Along with DOZENS of other REAL experts/investigators. The only ones saying it's a conspiracy are the loose change guys and other completely unqualified people on the internet.
Afghanistan? We knew it was a problem before 9/11. Thats beside the point anyway because it's the U.S. militarys job to come up with military planning with a possible enemy BEFORE we go to war. It's called being prepared.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11...thats a whole other can of worms.
This is full of fail. You tell me what was wrong with Afghanistan that had the US ready to invade that DOESN'T involve terrorism. And before you say Opium, the Opium trade only began it's recent re-emergence AFTER the US invasion.
One of the key reasons Americans supported the war in Iraq was that the Bush Administration said that Saddam harbored the Taliban terrorists. And supported them. And then later on, lied about saying it and totally contradicting themselves.
The Government report was full of holes. Here's one, how about the size of the hole in the Pentagon? Yea I'm sure that a full sized jet like the one that was supposed to crash into it would make a small hole in one of the walls. Not to mention where the fuck did all the debris go? Also, all other reports that backed the governments reports have been widely discredited as being nothing more than backing the safe story so no one upsets the status quo.
But to all of you out there that's content to lap up the slop that they feed you about this series of terrible and ultimately pointless events, continue to suck at the teet. If you're not going to ask questions of your leaders, or allow others to do so, then you make "democracy" and "freedom" fail. I'd rather be a crazy bastard than a sheep.
Afghanistan? We knew it was a problem before 9/11. Thats beside the point anyway because it's the U.S. militarys job to come up with military planning with a possible enemy BEFORE we go to war. It's called being prepared.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11...thats a whole other can of worms.
This is full of fail. You tell me what was wrong with Afghanistan that had the US ready to invade that DOESN'T involve terrorism. And before you say Opium, the Opium trade only began it's recent re-emergence AFTER the US invasion.
One of the key reasons Americans supported the war in Iraq was that the Bush Administration said that Saddam harbored the Taliban terrorists. And supported them. And then later on, lied about saying it and totally contradicting themselves.
The Government report was full of holes. Here's one, how about the size of the hole in the Pentagon? Yea I'm sure that a full sized jet like the one that was supposed to crash into it would make a small hole in one of the walls. Not to mention where the fuck did all the debris go? Also, all other reports that backed the governments reports have been widely discredited as being nothing more than backing the safe story so no one upsets the status quo.
But to all of you out there that's content to lap up the slop that they feed you about this series of terrible and ultimately pointless events, continue to suck at the teet. If you're not going to ask questions of your leaders, or allow others to do so, then you make "democracy" and "freedom" fail. I'd rather be a crazy bastard than a sheep.
*Looks at the 4 pages on information already answering what your talking about. Especially page 4 which offers mountains of FACTS and even videos disproving the pathetic assumptiions your trying to make*pirateninj4 said:
To answer "You tell me what was wrong with Afghanistan that had the US ready to invade that DOESN'T involve terrorism." directly.
It's common military practise for a country to draw up plans against possible enemies. We knew that the Taliban in Afghanistan were possible enemies when the effects of our proxy war in Afghanistan became clear.
The Bush administration saying Saddam supported terrorist in order to drum up support for the war is definitely true. That just proves that they played good politics and took advantage of the situation to further America's own agendas in the middle east. And that they're liars but meh thats already been proven over and over. They didn't however come up with an elaborate scheme to destroy the towers.
---
Oh and this?
"Also, all other reports that backed the governments reports have been widely discredited as being nothing more than backing the safe story so no one upsets the status quo."
By who? Who "discredited" the gov't reports. Show me your facts that prove the gov't and all the other independent reports wrong? You can't because the only people who think they gov't did this make bullshit assumptions based on lies, misconceptions, or inaccurate information.
That would be autoignition point, the temperature at which it can spontaniously ignite, NOT highest burn temperature. It says so in your own link...101194 said:
You cannot convince me that those towers were that easy to destroy (relatively). Surely they were constructed better then that. Besides if you compare it to a game of Jenga, if the in Jenga the piece is removed that invariably causes that tower to fall, the whole tower doesn't fall, just the part that was above the piece that was removed. Following that logic, if (and that's a big 'if') the planes had caused serious enough damage, the most I would've expected to happen was that the upper floors would've fallen off and crashed on to the street below.Optix334 said:
Now all I wanted to to say was that it was suspicious. I do have a conspiracy theory of my own that I've been respectfully keeping to myself, but if you REALLY want to hear it...
Some facts for us to ponder:
1. The beams sticking out of the rubble featured clean, diagonal cuts.
2. The fuel fire was so hot that it managed to melt the steel... Yet somehow the terrorists' papers/passports managed to survive.
3. Some of the terrorists reported in the planes and still featuring dead in the official investigations were later found alive.
4. Building 7 fell freely. A shockwave, tremor or debris CANNOT create such a simultaneous collapse.
5. Bin Laden has still not been found. Yet he's been able to send all his tapes and messages for years.
6. The World Trade Center buildings were designed, as most skyscrapers, to be able to withstand an airplane crash. Two direct hits with two free-falls is certainly a mystery.
1. The beams sticking out of the rubble featured clean, diagonal cuts.
2. The fuel fire was so hot that it managed to melt the steel... Yet somehow the terrorists' papers/passports managed to survive.
3. Some of the terrorists reported in the planes and still featuring dead in the official investigations were later found alive.
4. Building 7 fell freely. A shockwave, tremor or debris CANNOT create such a simultaneous collapse.
5. Bin Laden has still not been found. Yet he's been able to send all his tapes and messages for years.
6. The World Trade Center buildings were designed, as most skyscrapers, to be able to withstand an airplane crash. Two direct hits with two free-falls is certainly a mystery.
Did you really just compare the structures of the twin towers to jenga.....I don't know whether to laugh or cry...canadamus_prime said:
Fuck it Im out of this thread. All the facts have been presented across the previous 4 pages. If anyone still believes this was a conspiracy then nothing will change their delusional minds.
/wrists
Except that the principles are not the same at all whatsoever, but ok. It's like trying to compare how a building will react based on how legos will react, Do you not see how this type of thinking is flawed?canadamus_prime said:
---------------
Before I go lets debunk this post point by point real quick
1. Thats a clean cut? REALLY? Did you even look at the picture you posted. That thing is jagged and very far from a "clean" cut. Not to mention that a diagonal cut on that beam proves exactly what? Oh it proves nothing, thats right.Cubilone said:
2. The fuel didn't melt steel, nor did anyone in the gov't claim the steel in the building melted. In fact the claim by loose change is that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. The fire weakned the steel structure which caused it's collapse. It didn't have to melt anything. As far as the passports/papers go, fires are unpredictable. Ever seen a house fire? Just because the building was on fire doesn't mean every single thing in the buildings were charred. Plenty of regular office papers from both buildings survived intact as well. Papers being there doesn't prove anything.
3. What your talking about here is from loose change. They found some guy who just so happens to have the same name as one of the terrorist and try to say "Look see the guy is alive! it's all a lie!". Alas people sometimes have the same names. In my highschool alone there were two kids with my same first and last name. All the terrorists caught on aiport security cameras boarded the planes and are now dead, period.
4. Shockwave, tremor, or debris cannot cause a building to collapse? What do you live in the world of Jenga physics like the other guy I quoted? How do you explain buildings collapsing days after a minor earthquake has weakened their structures? What about building demolitions where debris from the demo hits buildings in the surrounding area and weakens them extensively? Hell what about buildings that fall for no reason other then their original supports had flaws? Buildings are mroe fragile then what people assume. A relatively tiny error can comprimise a buildings structuaral integrity. Both towers falling provided enough shaking to classify as a very minor earthquake, that combined with the tons of debris/dust that fell on the surrounding buildings led to building 7 collapsing.
5. How does this prove the US gov't somehow planned the attacks? We can barely track down high profile criminals in our own country and its somehow seems strange to you that we can find someone who hides out in caves and underground bunkers?
6. Uh no. "Withstanding a 747 airplane hitting our building" was definitely not on the minds of the people who built the towers. (Edit: Smaller planes were thought of but nothing that size) Sky Scrapers in the NE are built primarily to withstand high winds and the shaking that comes from being so damn tall. Anyways the point is irrelavant anyway because it wasn't the crashes that brought down the towers. It was the fire burning for hours that weakened the metal supports and comprimised the buildings structuaral integrity that brought them down. If we had been able to put out the fires after the planes crashed both buildings would still be standing.
Most conspiracy theories are really really stupid. Let the idiots be idiots, and for the love of God, don't read the YouTube comments. It's sad, but there are worse things about this world to worry about.
Nice Yu-Gi-Oh! Abridged reference.NoMoreSanity said:
On topic I do believe that it was bombs that brought down the twin towers and building 7.