5 of 7
5
9/11 Conspiracy Theories are bullshit.
Posted: 17 September 2007 09:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2007-05-20

More arguments from incredulity.  I don’t understand how it could be possible so it must be impossible = argument from incredulity. 

How can a small building in Hiroshima survive an atomic bomb and WTC fell from a plane striking it?  Incredulous question that should be directed at an atomic bomb expert.  I will, however, point out that the memorial building is hardly standing intact.  It seems to be the facade of a building- if you notice the backside is decimated.  But seeing as we are talking about the difference between a towering skyscraper being hit directly by an airline jet flying at top speed directly into it’s target, and an atomic bomb hitting somewhere in Hiroshima- I think the comparison is invalid.

I see your sarcasm with the word TINY, however it is the height of the building itself that would have made it more likely to collapse.  Comparing it to a low lying building made of stone is not fair.

I’m willing to take NIST’s word on the subject over teenage docu-web fanboys and raving madmen, such as the “gentleman” in the link you provided, who offer no proof and lots of nonsense.

The fact is that the conspiracy theorists can’t come up with a coherent argument stating their case.  They say the planes never crashed- where are they then?  They say it was cruise missiles- how did those cruise missiles bend light poles and fool the eye of mulitple witnesses?  They say it was thermite- how could thermite (a substance that creates a slow chemical reaction) demolish a building and where is the evidence of thermite?  They say that Bush and Cheney did this to themselves- but where is the proof, and why shouldn’t we believe that western-hating admitted terrorists would plot and execute an attack on U.S. targets?

There is no proof, you are merely speculating, and the fact that your theory is based on circumstantial conjecture makes it an insult to everyone who died that day, their families, and pretty much everyone else.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2007 12:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  178
Joined  2007-06-01

I recently saw a documentary on the making of loose change 2.  Oddly enough, the collaborators on the film were shown attempting to re-write the section on the collapse of the towers.  They were attempting to re-tell the story minus the many successfully debunked statements from the 1st film.

They were literally sitting around making up stuff that would play to the audience better than before.  Like a marketing person would do in order to sell a product with a defect.  It was pathetic.

Personally, I thi8nk most of the so-called 9/11 truthers are just trying to make a name for themselves or sell something.  Others have a political agenda, that has nothing to do with the event itself.

 Signature 

“Life is a Blur of Republicans and Meat” - Zippy

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2007 12:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  178
Joined  2007-06-01

“in this hour and twenty-minute video I counted 81 errors of fact (statements like “1+1 = 3”). In addition, I counted 345 instances of conjecture not supported by evidence, logical fallacies, uses of images that do not support the conclusions being drawn, and other flubs. And that’s only counting errors of commission. The errors of omission are more serious. (Note: I have turned up more errors while doing this update, but I find it too depressing to count them.)”

See this site for a list of corrections to Loose Change 2

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

 Signature 

“Life is a Blur of Republicans and Meat” - Zippy

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2007 12:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2377
Joined  2007-07-05

How can a small building in Hiroshima survive an atomic bomb and WTC fell from a plane striking it?  Incredulous question that should be directed at an atomic bomb expert.

It is amazing how people that portray themselves as intelligent need experts to tell them everything.

Do our schools actually brainwash people to be dependent on others to do their thinking and just throw around a lot of rhetoric to maintain the pretense of intelligence.

This exact same phenomenon was observed at Tunguska.  The trees directly under the explosion remained standing though their branches were stripped off while trees away from the center were knocked flat by the lateral forces applied to them.  The structure of the WTC would have withstood the compressional forces applied to it long enough for the collapsing mass to get off center and go off the side.  That plane could not have LEVELED the building.  Anyone trying to promote that idea should come up with the specs for tons of steel and tons of concrete on every floor.  HAVE YOU SEEN IT?  The NIST doesn’t even specify the tons of steel at the point of impact.

How man tons of steel can you raise to 1000 deg F in 56 minutes with only 34 tons of kerosene?

I see your sarcasm with the word TINY, however it is the height of the building itself that would have made it more likely to collapse.  Comparing it to a low lying building made of stone is not fair.

I brilliant observation that but I say your conclusion about the collapse is totally bogus.  How strong did the bottom 5 stories have to be to hold that swaying building in a 90 mph wind?  I bet a Hiroshima size bomb detonated at the 80th floor could not have done what that plane supposedly did.  That required distributed explosive force.

I’m willing to take NIST’s word

There is the problem.  I take NO ONE’S word.  The objective is to understand.

psik

[ Edited: 17 September 2007 12:56 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2007 01:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2007-05-20

NIST employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel.  How many scientists, engineers, and technicians do the makers of your cute little web videos employ?  When one is confused by the scientific and technological details of an event, one must go to scientists and technicians.  The problem is that nothing will satisfy you and your conspiracy pals unless you are proven correct on your “theory”.  No matter how many scientists, technicians, or reasonable skeptics explain to you the details of your inaccuracies, you will always find a way to move the goalposts.  And there is no way to win with you guys because you won’t accept the evidence from actual scientists who know a little something about the subject.

Your example of Tunguska does not make it any better of a comparison.  The trees left standing must have been in on a conspiracy to save them; that is the only conclusion I can come up with whenever I find an anomoly.  You?  The important fact is that you’re delusional if you think that the events of 9/11 can be compared to an atomic bomb explosion.

I’m not sure what you’re implying with school brainwashing.  I remember writing down notes given by my teachers and reading textbooks written by scholars.  Let’s be honest, the majority of what we learn in school comes from EXPERTS because if we relied on teenagers that make web videos to teach us about life’s “mysteries” we would be pretty bad off.  You think?

The problem really is your lack of accepting the truth from a variety of experts.  That is the problem.  I completely agree.  Your objective is not to understand.  You’ve painted yourself into a corner where your objective is nothing more than to prove your theory right, so that the people who think you’re crazy will eat their words.  You’ve lost all objectivity on this subject, a fact made clear by the links you have so generously provided for all of us.

Now, please reply again with more incredulous claims, requests for concrete measurements, links to insulting ad hominem goobers, and random insults that hide your weak arguments.  I thought so.

[ Edited: 17 September 2007 01:44 PM by ticktock ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2007 09:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-06-17

I bet a Hiroshima size bomb detonated at the 80th floor could not have done what that plane supposedly did.

A Hiroshima sized bomb (~13 kilotons) on the 80th floor of the WTC would have turned the WTC into plasma, then gas and fine ash.  The only traces of a building might be some indications of a foundation.

That one church as not the only building left standing, and the vast majority of the damage caused was not caused by the blast, but by ensuing fires.  Many buildings designed to withstand earthquakes, or made of fireproof materials “survived”, though they were actually burnt out shells.  The scene was quite similar to the San Francisco earthquake, where the vast majority of damage was not caused by the earthquake itself, but by the ensuing fires caused mainly by ruptured gas mains.

You obviously have no basic grasp of any of the concepts or information that you need to make intelligible statements about these things, and I doubt that any explanation, no matter how elementary, will ever disabuse you of your wishful thinking.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2007 11:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2377
Joined  2007-07-05
rsonin - 18 September 2007 09:41 AM

I bet a Hiroshima size bomb detonated at the 80th floor could not have done what that plane supposedly did.

A Hiroshima sized bomb (~13 kilotons) on the 80th floor of the WTC would have turned the WTC into plasma, then gas and fine ash.  The only traces of a building might be some indications of a foundation.

You obviously have no basic grasp of any of the concepts or information that you need to make intelligible statements about these things, and I doubt that any explanation, no matter how elementary, will ever disabuse you of your wishful thinking.

This is F__K__G hilarious.

ROFLMAO

Here is the link to the Trinity 16 July 1945 website.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Trinity.html

The first atomic bomb was detonated at the top of a 100 foot tower.  There were not multiple slabs of concrete between the bomb and the foundation of the 100 FOOT TOWER.  There is a picture of General Groves with Oppenheimer with what was left of the foundation of that 100 FOOT TOWER.  It didn’t contain nearly as much steel as one floor of the WTC.

Trinity-gadget1.jpg
http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/hst/northamerican/TrinitySite-I/chap1.html

The tank’s passengers found that the 100-foot steel tower had virtually disappeared, with only the metal and concrete stumps of its four legs remaining. Oppenheimer and Groves examine tower piling in crater Surrounding ground zero was a crater almost 2,400 feet across and about ten feet deep in places.

Trinity-crater.jpg

So you think 13 kilotons would turn the bottom 10 floors of the WTC into plasma through 70 concrete slabs at a distance of more than 700 feet when that much was left at 100 feet with no concrete in between.  Your comprehension of physics is absolutely astounding.  Maybe you should try doing some research before you type nonsense.

The Trinity Test

July 16 1945, 5:29:45 A.M. (Mountain War Time)
Trinity Site Zero, Alamogordo Test Range,
Jornada del Muerto desert.

Yield: 20-22 Kilotons

on August 6, 1945. This is when the world’s second nuclear bomb, nicknamed Little Boy, exploded 1,850 feet over Hiroshima, Japan, destroying a large portion of the city and killing an estimated 70,000 to 130,000 of its inhabitants.

So that picture of the Hiroshima Memorial shows what was left at a distance of 1,850 feet with nothing between it and detonation of the bomb.

psik

[ Edited: 19 September 2007 12:16 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2007 12:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2007-05-20

ROFLMAO

I’m skeptical that you were actually rolling on the floor laughing your ass off.

Perhaps you will understand when you visit this link http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html.  Anybody smell fish?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2007 11:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-06-17

You just proved my point.  All that was left of that 100 foot tower was a hole, which those men are standing in, in which were the remains of footings that had been underground.  Read your own post - the bomb left a crater ten feet deep.

More distortion and nonsense.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2007 12:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2377
Joined  2007-07-05
rsonin - 19 September 2007 11:45 AM

You just proved my point.  All that was left of that 100 foot tower was a hole, which those men are standing in, in which were the remains of footings that had been underground.  Read your own post - the bomb left a crater ten feet deep.

More distortion and nonsense.

Jesus H. Christ

I said how tall the tower was therefore what was the distance from the center of the explosion to the foundation?

The effect of the explosion at a given point is going to be inversely proportional to the square of the distance assuming nothing is in the way.  Double the distance 1/4th the effect.  There would be 70 concrete slabs spaced 12 feet apart above the 10 floor of the WTC. 

The reason I included the picture of the tower was so you could see how thin the steel was.  Do you think that steel could even support a 5 story building?

You can’t even comprehend what you are talking about.

BYE!

psik

[ Edited: 19 September 2007 12:37 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2007 12:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2007-05-20

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 September 2007 06:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-06-17

So you think 13 kilotons would turn the bottom 10 floors of the WTC into plasma

You are insisting that a bomb that destroyed an entire city would not be able to destroy one building.  If that is not qualify as an absurdity prima facie then I don’t know what would.

This is prior to the physics of it, which would show quite easily that everything within about 20-30 stories of the bomb would be turned into plasma within a quarter of a second, and that both buildings would be pulverized completely within less than a second, with the majority of the material they were made of being turned into gas and ash.

When it comes to a nuclear explosion, nothing is in the way.  If you put a nuclear bomb in solid rock, it turns the rock into a void.  A nuclear bomb would go through four inch slabs of concrete like dynamite through cardboard.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2007 08:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  245
Joined  2007-07-27

They proved that the buildings were just not constructed right and the weight of one floor collapsing on top of the other is what caused the towers to come down.

It was not any kind of conspiracy.

 Signature 

In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holely Goat I bring the truth

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2007 11:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2377
Joined  2007-07-05
Holely Goat - 23 September 2007 08:50 PM

They proved that the buildings were just not constructed right

Names?  Dates?  Link?

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2007 01:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  245
Joined  2007-07-27

I don’t remember but it was on one of those news shows a year or two ago, Dateline or 20/20 or Primetime or something. Millions watched the show. Are you trying to say that the two planes never crashed into the twin towers and knocked it down?

Or are you trying to say that the US government knocked it down?

But whatever you are saying where is your proof? Time? Date? Place?

 Signature 

In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holely Goat I bring the truth

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 7
5