For you 9/11 conspiracy theorists

#1
A

allvol123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
50,179
Likes
50,303
#1
I guess one point I have seen made by the non-believers is that the fire could have never gotten hot enough to melt the steel.

If you have seen the overpass that melted in CA from the tanker truck that wrecked and burned, how does that jive?
 
#3
#3
Well they didn't melt it, as has been proven that is impossible. They did plant bombs though.
 
#5
#5
allvol123 said:
I guess one point I have seen made by the non-believers is that the fire could have never gotten hot enough to melt the steel.

If you have seen the overpass that melted in CA from the tanker truck that wrecked and burned, how does that jive?
Click to expand...

Easy... the Jews did it. (actual argument made by some on the left fringe)
 
#6
#6
I used to be prepared to argue the 9/11 thing to the death (on the side of the "conspiracy" theorists), but I have found it to be one of those topics on which stances are so firm, perhaps only one mind in a million can be changed, no matter how effective the argument. Not that the one mind isn't worth changing, but it's not likely to happen on an internet message board. In general, opinions on the subject are just too preconcieved and too closely tied to prior-held political views and party associations. And fortunately, the kind of time it takes to argue the point well...I just don't have it. :no:
 
#8
#8
All Vol! said:
I used to be prepared to argue the 9/11 thing to the death (on the side of the "conspiracy" theorists), but I have found it to be one of those topics on which stances are so firm, perhaps only one mind in a million can be changed, no matter how effective the argument. Not that the one mind isn't worth changing, but it's not likely to happen on an internet message board. In general, opinions on the subject are just to preconcieved and too closely tied to prior-held political views and party associations. And fortunately, the kind of time it takes to argue the point well...I just don't have it. :no:
Click to expand...
Don't you think that if the US Government was going to murder ~3,000 of its citizens, indiscriminately, it would let one or two people create a conspiracy video supposedly revealing their plot?

I also have plenty of time to read your point...
 
#9
#9
All Vol! said:
I used to be prepared to argue the 9/11 thing to the death (on the side of the "conspiracy" theorists), but I have found it to be one of those topics on which stances are so firm, perhaps only one mind in a million can be changed, no matter how effective the argument. Not that the one mind isn't worth changing, but it's not likely to happen on an internet message board. In general, opinions on the subject are just too preconcieved and too closely tied to prior-held political views and party associations. And fortunately, the kind of time it takes to argue the point well...I just don't have it. :no:
Click to expand...

Does the bridge situation impact your thinking at all?
 
#10
#10
Looney left-leaning conspiracy theorists are some of the multitude of idiots that give progressives such as myself a bad name. Get over it, we let our guard down over the course of a decade, and it came back to bite us in the hindquarters, if there were bombs in the building they were planted by the terrorists. Notice how I said they were, not they probably were.
 
#11
#11
therealUT said:
Don't you think that if the US Government was going to murder ~3,000 of its citizens, indiscriminately, it would let one or two people create a conspiracy video supposedly revealing their plot?

I also have plenty of time to read your point...
Click to expand...

With Bush, anything is possible
 
#15
#15
unless it's the man of steel, then fire won't hurt that steel only kryptonite.
 
#18
#18
CSpindizzy said:
Nope. Different grades. Different items added in for durability. Different thicknesses, densities, etc. Thus different melting points.
Click to expand...

Really? That's tight Cspinn. Doesn't change the fact that one of the arguments by the conspiracy people is that a jet fuel fire could not get hot enough to melt steel.
 
#19
#19
I'm not arguing that point or defending conspiracy theorists. If you were actually paying attention I was saying how different a bridge is to a sky scraper and how trying to compare the two is a little far fetched. Conditions between the two are quite different. It's hard to back up an argument when the example does not even match.
 
#20
#20
CSpindizzy said:
I'm not arguing that point or defending conspiracy theorists. If you were actually paying attention I was saying how different a bridge is to a sky scraper and how trying to compare the two is a little far fetched. Conditions between the two are quite different. It's hard to back up an argument when the example does not even match.
Click to expand...

Who compared a bridge to a skyscraper? I compared a tanker truck melting a bridge's steel to that of a jet exploding and melting the steel of a building. It is a comparison, of course conditions are different, but it is steel being melted by fire. People compare things all the time that do not have the exact same conditions. Follow your own advice and pay attention.
 
#21
#21
LOL. YOU compared a bridge to a sky scraper....this bridge in SF to the WTC. You are comparing conditions...albeit far fetched comparisons. A concrete bridge with steel reinforced rebar as opposed to a building full of thick I beams is a drastic difference. It's like comparing a toothpick to a huge oak tree. Both burn...therefore...
 
#22
#22
CSpindizzy said:
LOL. YOU compared a bridge to a sky scraper....this bridge in SF to the WTC. You are comparing conditions...albeit far fetched comparisons. A concrete bridge with steel reinforced rebar as opposed to a building full of thick I beams is a drastic difference. It's like comparing a toothpick to a huge oak tree. Both burn...therefore...
Click to expand...

Are you laughing at yourself?

I used the idea that conspiracy theorists say the fire could have not gotten hot enough to melt steel and then showed an example of where a fire melted steel. Both fires fed by fuel. Never did I compare a bridge to a skyscraper. I don't drive across skyscrapers or work in a bridge. Yes, there is a difference, again very perceptive of you. Which steel do you think was having more forces applied to it while burning? So in your world the only way to compare something is if it is exactly alike. What is the point of comparing then?
 
#23
#23
The WTC wasn't traditional I-beams - it had a type of rebar running under each floor. The vertical structure was provided by the exterior walls. The official view is that the rebar under the floors sagged and was weakened significantly at the connection to the exterior walls (if I remember correctly). There were fail points at each floor rather than a "melting" of vertical I-beams.
 
#24
#24
Point is very limited amount of steel rods as opposed to beams, rods, sheets, etc. is a stretch.

I'm not the one who brought up the WTC conspiracy theorists and a bridge that collapsed. You did. You are comparing them by bringing them up. I said they were vastly different. Can we also compare a small firecracker to the OKC bombing? I mean both were explosive materials.
 
#25
#25
You can compare whatever you want since you like making things up. I compared a fire that was running on fuel to another fire started by fuel and melted steel.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top