Proof to put the 9/11 Truthers to bed in less than 2 mins

#501
#501
BigOrangeTrain said:
You are the one who quickly dismissed the experts who disagree with the ones who do agree. I have never discredited or ignored any of the experts who agree with 9/11. I honestly do not know who is right and neither do you. As I have stated, we do not have access to every piece of information relevant to 9/11. Therefore, none of us can make any real claims. Only speculation.

You can say people see what they want to see all you want, but that doesn't mean those who disagree aren't right. The bottom line is this, there have been experts who disagree with the 9/11 reports. Are their explanations correct? Who knows? we will likely never know with absolute certainty what really happened on 9/11. To say that the US government doesn't have the capability to cover something like this is fallacious. To blindly say that those who are exercising different opinions are seeing what they want or are just conspiracy nuts is also fallacious.
Click to expand...

lining up what we know and the logical conclusion is that the collapse of the buildings was caused by the obvious source. To say that we don't have all the facts and therefore the conspiracy theories are equally likely is simply wrong.

It is akin to saying that Lee Harvey Oswald killing Kennedy is one theory and my theory that he was killed by CIA trained Oompa Loompas is also equally likely because we simply don't know all of the facts. I got news, you never know all of the facts, but what is known certainly makes one theory far more likely than another. conspiracy theorists are typically looking analyze facts out of context and have an unwillingness to examine the facts as a whole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#502
#502
Rasputin_Vol said:
Asymmetrical and superficial. It should have fallen in the direction of the weakened side, assuming it was enough to cause catastrophic failure.

So we have 3 different asymmetrical events that miraculously cause 3 buildings to collapse in the normal direction?
Click to expand...


Read up on the design of the buildings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#507
#507
Carl Pickens said:
I didn't see a passenger jet slam into it..... Or a 110 story building collapse across the street and into its foundation.
Click to expand...

This is something that truthers like to ignore. The fire at the WTC was unlike any other in that was instantly spread by thousands of gallons of fuel. It didn't start as a small fire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#508
#508
ClearwaterVol said:
This is something that truthers like to ignore. The fire at the WTC was unlike any other in that was instantly spread by thousands of gallons of fuel. It didn't start as a small fire.
Click to expand...

I guess its one thing to question whether the govt knew the attack was coming ...... But the controlled demolition idea is just way too far out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#511
#511
Carl Pickens said:
I guess its one thing to question whether the govt knew the attack was coming ...... But the controlled demolition idea is just way too far out there.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. I don't have issues so much with those who think the government was behind it, or especially with those who think the government may have let it happen willingly (though not directly). I do think one should be more cautious in making such claims if he has no actual proof (as none of them do).

But those who think anybody, let alone the US govt. or Israelis or even lesbian Jew Nazis, planted explosives in the buildings or that planes didn't actually hit them, there are just no words to describe how dumb you are. That's another level of stupidity that has not yet had an English word coined to describe it. Perhaps there's a long, guttural German word, but none in English that I know of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#512
#512
volprof said:
I couldn't agree more. I don't have issues so much with those who think the government was behind it, or especially with those who think the government may have let it happen willingly (though not directly). I do think one should be more cautious in making such claims if he has no actual proof (as none of them do).

But those who think anybody, let alone the US govt. or Israelis or even lesbian Jew Nazis, planted explosives in the buildings or that planes didn't actually hit them, there are just no words to describe how dumb you are. That's another level of stupidity that has not yet had an English word coined to describe it. Perhaps there's a long, guttural German word, but none in English that I know of.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

I'd be interested to know why, according to truthers, was the demolition of Building 7 necessary? Wasn't the destruction of the iconic twin towers enough or was the destruction of a building that the vast majority of Americans weren't even aware existed required to properly ignite the American people? And, why the government couldn't admit to the controlled demolition of a badly damaged building?
 
#513
#513
ClearwaterVol said:
I agree with this.

I'd be interested to know why, according to truthers, was the demolition of Building 7 necessary? Wasn't the destruction of the iconic twin towers enough or was the destruction of a building that the vast majority of Americans weren't even aware existed required to properly ignite the American people? And, why the government couldn't admit to the controlled demolition of a badly damaged building?
Click to expand...

Our problem is evidently expecting simple logic to be simple for everyone.
 
#515
#515
ClearwaterVol said:
I agree with this.

I'd be interested to know why, according to truthers, was the demolition of Building 7 necessary? Wasn't the destruction of the iconic twin towers enough or was the destruction of a building that the vast majority of Americans weren't even aware existed required to properly ignite the American people? And, why the government couldn't admit to the controlled demolition of a badly damaged building?
Click to expand...

volprof said:
Our problem is evidently expecting simple logic to be simple for everyone.
Click to expand...

Well, duh. WTC 7 was home to some shadowy organization that had dirt on the ties between the Bush and Bin Laden families.

Come on, guys. :crazy:
 
#517
#517
The airplanes that hit the WTC weren't fake. The media is trying to discourage us. Did a plane or a missile hit the Pentagon? Why wasn't the hole larger/wider at the Pentagon? I was in the Pentagon in November after the attack and could still smell the fuel oil!
 
#518
#518
TennFan said:
The airplanes that hit the WTC weren't fake. The media is trying to discourage us. Did a plane or a missile hit the Pentagon? Why wasn't the hole larger/wider at the Pentagon? I was in the Pentagon in November after the attack and could still smell the fuel oil!
Click to expand...

I think something like this is what people expect when an object punches a hole in a wall.

hole-in-wall.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#519
#519
ClearwaterVol said:
lining up what we know and the logical conclusion is that the collapse of the buildings was caused by the obvious source. To say that we don't have all the facts and therefore the conspiracy theories are equally likely is simply wrong.

It is akin to saying that Lee Harvey Oswald killing Kennedy is one theory and my theory that he was killed by CIA trained Oompa Loompas is also equally likely because we simply don't know all of the facts. I got news, you never know all of the facts, but what is known certainly makes one theory far more likely than another. conspiracy theorists are typically looking analyze facts out of context and have an unwillingness to examine the facts as a whole.
Click to expand...

Your first paragraph is funny. No its not simply wrong. What if the info we "know" is wrong? Is that possible? If not, why? You can make any silly analogy to denigrate all you want but here is a fact, either all possibilities exist or none do. So because what we know makes one theory more likely than another, makes it concrete and immune to question?
 
#521
#521
BigOrangeTrain said:
Your first paragraph is funny. No its not simply wrong. What if the info we "know" is wrong? Is that possible? If not, why? You can make any silly analogy to denigrate all you want but here is a fact, either all possibilities exist or none do. So because what we know makes one theory more likely than another, makes it concrete and immune to question?
Click to expand...

We "know" two passenger jets slammed into the two towers at roughly 600 mph and that one of them fell and damaged WTC7's foundation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#522
#522
ClearwaterVol said:
This is something that truthers like to ignore. The fire at the WTC was unlike any other in that was instantly spread by thousands of gallons of fuel. It didn't start as a small fire.
Click to expand...

The fuel in question was only jet fuel (or diesel). It doesn't burn the way gasoline does... it has to be atomized. The truthers have already discussed this. The jet fuel was of little consequence.
 
#523
#523
BigOrangeTrain said:
Architects and Engineers On 9/11! Excellent Must See! - YouTube

This is an honest question. Why is everyone in this video (structural engineers, physicists, mettalurgists, chemical engineers, architects) just wrong? Why are their opinions less valid than what the NIST report says?

Why are the eyewitnesses who said they heard explosions wrong? Firefighters, medics, regular people and police officers all said they heard explosions. Why is that? Why is it that people were at ground zero and said it reminded them of demolition? Why did some experts in the field of controlled demolition say it was CD? I know other CD experts have said it wasnt, but why would their opinion be more valid? Why didnt NIST test for explosives? Why didnt NIST do a full and proper investigation?

There is conflicting information out there that begs the question of what really happened. We dont know what really happened. And thats sad. Remember: "it is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority."- Benjamin Franklin
Click to expand...

how many of the witnesses are experts on explosions? especially when they are part of it. I probably couldn't tell the difference between the sound of structural collapses and explosions. and remember there are all types of systems within a building failing and going wrong.

as to the investigation, how? they were still cleaning up debri from a hole you could stick Neyland Stadium in a year afterwards. How do I know that? Because I saw it with my own eyes. How do you do an investigation? and why when you know it was some planes hitting the building?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top