9/11 Conspiracy Thread

#452
#452
BigOrangeTrain said:
So that refutes every comment made by all of those scientists in the videos? Wrong. It doesnt refute anything. All that post was was another persons opinion. Just like every other post in this thread.
Click to expand...

It absolutely refutes the theory that the WTC towers were collapsed via demolition. Simply think it through.

I have no problem with structural or civil engineers debating the play-by-play of the collape. That is a different matter entirely. When they cross the line of intentional demolition, they have entered pure fantasy land.

Now, if you are simply stating all those scientists and engineers in the truther videos couldn't be wrong, the same question can be reversed: Are all the countless engineers, scientists, intelligence officers, and witnesses supporting the 'mainstream' story (remember way more of them) wrong? See how that works?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#453
#453
Ttucke11 said:
Good analysis. I enjoyed the part where you gave solid points. I'm not saying I know what happened, but idk how you don't think something fishy went on.
Click to expand...

Upon further review, I would like some more information on this 2.6 trillion dollars you claim Rumsfeld was talking about on September 10th.
 
#454
#454
PKT_VOL said:
It absolutely refutes the theory that the WTC towers were collapsed via demolition. Simply think it through.

I have no problem with structural or civil engineers debating the play-by-play of the collape. That is a different matter entirely. When they cross the line of intentional demolition, they have entered pure fantasy land.

Now, if you are simply stating all those scientists and engineers in the truther videos couldn't be wrong, the same question can be reversed: Are all the countless engineers, scientists, intelligence officers, and witnesses supporting the 'mainstream' story (remember way more of them) wrong? See how that works?
Click to expand...

Everyone knows the only reputbale scientists are the ones who make YouTube videos. Thats the difference
 
#456
#456
volfanhill said:
Everyone knows the only reputbale scientists are the ones who make YouTube videos. Thats the difference
Click to expand...

Except for Bama fans posting football videos. Everyone knows they know everything about football, yet aren't scientists. Every football question can be summed up with one of these answers:

1 - Nick Saban
2 - Bear Bryant
3 - Roll Tide!

And every other Bama fan automatically agrees that's the correct answer.
 
#457
#457
Ttucke11 said:
It's definitely more believable that 19 Saudis with box cutters hijacked 4 planes from pilots with military backgrounds then had the expertise to fly said planes with very little training into buildings. Especially the one that hit the pentagon seeing as he turned a video game like radius, even though he was already headed straight at the pentagon, in order to nail the least populated part of the pentagon that held all financial records. Records that might've led to the missing 2.6 trillion dollars Rumsfeld mentioned missing the day before. And then 7 hours later a 47 story building just decides it's going to fall down as well. Even though no debris or planes hit it. Then instead of going to war with the Saudis, the ones who allegedly did it, we invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Definitely a more believable story.
Click to expand...

1. Debris did hit WTC7 and it was on fire all day long. It didn't just collapse.

2. As the link shows, the money wasn't missing. It was a reference to accounting systems inadequacy at tracking spending.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#458
#458
#459
#459
volfan_89 said:
So 2+ trillion missing the day before and the comptroller of the Pentagon at the time was a former executive of a defense contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies including remote-controlled aircraft systems. Nothing to see here at all. And yes a have a m'fn link.

» Rumsfeld says $2.3 Trillion never lost, just untracked Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
Click to expand...

Not sure I'd be using Infowars as a "reputable" source of info...

:popcorn:
 
#460
#460
volfan_89 said:
So 2+ trillion missing the day before and the comptroller of the Pentagon at the time was a former executive of a defense contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies including remote-controlled aircraft systems. Nothing to see here at all. And yes a have a m'fn link.

» Rumsfeld says $2.3 Trillion never lost, just untracked Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
Click to expand...

Rumsfeld's actual words:

According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.
Click to expand...

Being unable to "track $2.3 trillion in transactions" is not the same as saying "we're missing 2.3 trillion dollars." It just means your accounting system sucks.
 
#461
#461
bamawriter said:
Rumsfeld's actual words:



Being unable to "track $2.3 trillion in transactions" is not the same as saying "we're missing 2.3 trillion dollars." It just means your accounting system sucks.
Click to expand...

Now, now. Don't be urinating in the conspiracy pool with actual quotes taken in context.
 
#462
#462
bamawriter said:
Rumsfeld's actual words:



Being unable to "track $2.3 trillion in transactions" is not the same as saying "we're missing 2.3 trillion dollars." It just means your accounting system sucks.
Click to expand...

I'd say it more than sucks. Still very fishy to me anyways. Even more when you add to it the fact that the comptroller was a former exec for a company that specialized in remote controlled airplanes. Seems a bit sketchy to say the least.
 
#463
#463
volfan_89 said:
I'd say it more than sucks. Still very fishy to me anyways. Even more when you add to it the fact that the comptroller was a former exec for a company that specialized in remote controlled airplanes. Seems a bit sketchy to say the least.
Click to expand...

You mean this guy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dov_S._Zakheim

The same person that served in various DoD posts way, way, way before he was involved in this other company?
 
#464
#464
volfan_89 said:
I'd say it more than sucks. Still very fishy to me anyways. Even more when you add to it the fact that the comptroller was a former exec for a company that specialized in remote controlled airplanes. Seems a bit sketchy to say the least.
Click to expand...

Your argument doesn't track. Absolutely no one was making the claim that the DoD was out a single dime.

If my online banking crashes, and I don't have any paper statements, and I haven't written anything down or kept receipts, I cannot account for any of the transactions that resulted in my deposit balance. But that doesn't mean that I have any more or less on deposit than I ought to have.

Likewise, trying to destroy my bank would not have any effect on my ability to account for my debits and credits.

There is no logic behind this particular theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#466
#466
volfanhill said:
Everyone knows the only reputbale scientists are the ones who make YouTube videos. Thats the difference
Click to expand...

Professionals that have forgotten more about physics than you will ever know, lay out the visual evidence for you in these videos that you refuse to watch...

Yep, they're the dumb ones...
 
#467
#467
Pacer92 said:
Professionals that have forgotten more about physics than you will ever know, lay out the visual evidence for you in these videos that you refuse to watch...

Yep, they're the dumb ones...
Click to expand...

While, admittedly, I've only watched a few, the problem with the physics presented by some of these guys (who, interestingly, don't always seem keen on posting their credentials) is that they base them off fallacies. You've parroted many of them.

One of the videos (don't know if it was your link) has a guy pointing out that "with structure beneath the damaged floors, there is no way the towers could have fallen at a freefall rate of speed." This is absolutely accurate. But it's a totally meaningless statement because the towers didn't fall at freefall speed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#470
#470
bamawriter said:
While, admittedly, I've only watched a few, the problem with the physics presented by some of these guys (who, interestingly, don't always seem keen on posting their credentials) is that they base them off fallacies. You've parroted many of them.

One of the videos (don't know if it was your link) has a guy pointing out that "with structure beneath the damaged floors, there is no way the towers could have fallen at a freefall rate of speed." This is absolutely accurate. But it's a totally meaningless statement because the towers didn't fall at freefall speed.
Click to expand...

He doesn't normally respond to facts. I showed a time lapsed frame capture of the collapse that shows it fell in no where close to the time claimed. Crickets.

I showed interviews with people who saw the plane hit the Pentagon (per his request). Crickets. I know someone who witnessed it first hand. Crickets.

The interest is in building a conspiracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#471
#471
bamawriter said:
While, admittedly, I've only watched a few, the problem with the physics presented by some of these guys (who, interestingly, don't always seem keen on posting their credentials) is that they base them off fallacies. You've parroted many of them.

One of the videos (don't know if it was your link) has a guy pointing out that "with structure beneath the damaged floors, there is no way the towers could have fallen at a freefall rate of speed." This is absolutely accurate. But it's a totally meaningless statement because the towers didn't fall at freefall speed.
Click to expand...

Watch this from beginning to end.

https://youtu.be/c4d2Mt2a6iM
 
#473
#473
Pacer92 said:
Watch this from beginning to end.

https://youtu.be/c4d2Mt2a6iM
Click to expand...

MG1968 said:
He claims no planes were involved. It's impossible to take anything else he says seriously.
Click to expand...

This.

Sorry Pacer. But he leads with such a massive fallacy that it's impossible for me to take a single thing he says seriously.

Edit: I tried to go a little further in so I can't be accused of turning a deaf ear. All this guy does is take a bunch of out of context quotes and use them as some sort of "gotcha". It's confirmation bias, and not even a very intelligent example of it.
 
Last edited:
#474
#474
See, you guys refuse to comprehend anything different bc your belief is ruled by emotion. You only see what you want to see..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#475
#475
Pacer92 said:
See, you guys refuse to comprehend anything different bc your belief is ruled by emotion. You only see what you want to see..
Click to expand...

There's no emotion involved. The guy is a crackpot.

What's really sad are the comments under the youtube video.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top