Well this has to be one of the most significant events in recent history.
Some people believe the government story and support the wars. Other like myself believe it was a false flag event and despise the wars.
It is causing quite a division in society. The government supporters normally go on the offensive and ad hominem the 'conspiracy theorists' straight away, so please keep the ad hominems out!! Lets focus on the facts and argue them! (A fact can be about nature eg. Steel melting temp 1510c, Jet fuel burning temperature 1000c).
I will give my side, and the reasons why, and if you disagree or agree you can add to the discussion with your own argument supported by some points or 'facts'.
-Six months before the 9/11 attacks the World Trade Center was "privatized" by being leased to a private sector developer.
-Larry Silverstein awarded $4.6 billion after
-3 weeks up to 9/11 White vans seen entering WTC's at night while vacant.
-Stolen Video recording of these weeks.
-9/10 Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon
-On 9/11 two hijacked planes were flown into two World Trade Centers.
-15/19 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia
-3 second Jet Fuel fire ball, or ~1hr small oxygen staved office fires, are not enough to melt steel beams
-And in the case of the building core, Concrete encased columns.
-The Towers Came down at the speed of gravity, LIKE a controlled demolition
-WTC7 similary came down at the speed of gravity, no fires can be seen
-The Pentagon was hit by something which was not a passenger airliner
-I believe it was hit by a cruise missile, because there is no video evidence of an airliner hitting it. There was no Airline debris found around the pentagon. There would have to be 100's of cameras watching it, and watching out from it. But it might be a hijacked plane, in which case where was the air force.
-The airforce was not there because it was conveniently on a training mission.
-Procedure would be to intercept and shoot down.
-The 'terrorists' knew this and therefore did not fear them.
-This would mean Al CIAda and the US government are controlled by the same people.
-The US invades Afghanistan n Iraq, leaving Saudi Arabia alone.
-The US went to Afghanistan to take control of the oil fields and opium production
And the following war with ISIL.
-If Al Qeada and the US government are controlled by the same people, that would lead me to believe that ISIS is controlled by them.
-1 Traitor traded for 5 Islamic leaders
-US leave Iraq, leaving all weapons behind for ISIS
-Kurds make ground against ISIS, Turkey bombs the Kurds
-Turkey buys oil from ISIS, Russia catches them, Turkey shoots down Russian Jet.
-Turkey is NATO ally, Obama bombs a hospital.
-This would lead me to believe that the US government wants ISIS there, to get into Syria to over throw Assad. To put a Rothschild controlled central bank in the country and to get their oil!
I'm probably missing lots of things, but please add them to the discussion, and keep it nice!!!
Here is a reference video that explains my points better about 9/11 by Micheal C. Ruppert (who caught the CIA bringing drugs into America.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy9JCDchk34
-3 second Jet Fuel fire ball, or ~1hr small oxygen staved office fires, are not enough to melt steel beams
-And in the case of the building core, Concrete encased columns.
How do you know the beams were steel and concrete?
-I believe it was hit by a cruise missile, because there is no video evidence of an airliner hitting it. There was no Airline debris found around the pentagon.
Well, I believe it was a flying elephant, because there is no video evidence of a cruise missile hitting it, nor cruise missile debris.
Well Blinking Spirit since you ended rude, when i asked you to be nice nyal, ill do your Q's in reverse order. Its backwards day!!!!!
"This is me being nice. You don't want to know what I really think, but it rhymes with schmantisemite."
-Thats not being nice, you saying your being nice doesn't make it nice when you add "You don't want to know what I really think, but it rhymes with schmantisemite." to the end.
"What you think there's opium and oil in Afghanistan?"
-Pictures I've seen, and articles i have read. Some with the US military in it.
"How do you know the US didn't invade Saudi Arabia? Have you ever been there?"
-they are allies internationally, no.
"Pssh. That's just what they want you to think."
-why?
"How do you know what they know? Did you ask them? Are you in league with them?"
-Logical conclusion from the chain of command. No. No.
"Says who?"
Military procedure, goes to up to the chain of command to the president, in this case Bush was reading a story to kids so it went to Dick Chaney, who chose not to shoot down the plane.
"Whereas normally they have interceptor wings flying close air patrol around all major national landmarks and places of business at all times!"
No, but they would have had some spares somewhere. And from the time of the Hijacking to the hitting of the second tower was more than enough time to prepare.
-8:14: Flight 11 is hijacked
-8:42–8:46 (approx.): Flight 175 is hijacked
-8:50–8:54 (approx.): Flight 77 is hijacked.
-8:58: Flight 175 takes a heading toward New York City.
-9:03:02: Flight 175 crashes
-9:03: President Bush enters a classroom
45 min they had to get the second one...
-9:37:46: Flight 77 crashes into the western side of the Pentagon
and 1 hr and 23min for the pentagon
"Well, I believe it was a flying elephant, because there is no video evidence of a cruise missile hitting it, nor cruise missile debris."
How do you support that claim with physics?
"That's what all the cool people on the internet are saying, but you don't really believe it, do you?"
-I'm not sure, I am still considering both, and how that will effect my perspective.
"Gravity is just a theory!"
Theories are our best knowledge, based of facts. Hypothesis, are unproven ideas.
"How do you know the beams were steel and concrete?"
Yes I'm leaning towards just steel now, so now I'm trying to figure out how the towers didn't bend from the fires, instead of collapse in on themselves at the speed of gravity.
"And here you just swallow the official narrative?"
-Yes I am using their narrative and wondering why this conclusion of invading Saudi Arabia didn't happen.
"Did he really, though?"
-yep
"So no video evidence of these alleged vans then? Convenient."
There is no evidence of black holes either.. There is evidence just hard to find, and hard to believe.
"Did you see them?"
Nope
"So they say."
They say so.
"Was it?"
Yes
"Surely "conspiracy theorist" is no more of an ad hominem than "government supporter"."
I was using it as a descriptive sense, as you support the government story. If you took offence to that I'm sorry. Calling it a conspiracy is an attempt to discredit it.
Theories, they are, yesss.... (as mentioned above
So I don't think you really added much, got some good questions in there and some sarcastic ones, which I was trying to get people to stay away from... But cant be helped... free speech!! <3 Can tell a persons intelligence by the way the argue.
-3 second Jet Fuel fire ball, or ~1hr small oxygen staved office fires, are not enough to melt steel beams
So what?
They didn't have to melt the steel beams. It was a fire from jet fuel. It was ridiculously hot. Heat causes metal to expand. Warping the structure of a building compromises its structural integrity.
-The Towers Came down at the speed of gravity
There is no such thing as "speed of gravity."
There's the rate at which gravity accelerates things, ~9.8 m/s^2, and... Yeah, that's how things fall. What rate of acceleration would you think they'd be going at?
LIKE a controlled demolition
In the sense that a building fell down, yes, that's like a controlled demolition. However, the Twin Towers do not resemble a building collapsing in a controlled demolition.
There's also the internal logic: you're telling me that the government was able to orchestrate multiple planes being hijacked AND keep it a perfect secret that it was an internal job. Yet these people were also dumb enough to put explosives in the Twin Towers and only to botch it up by deciding to make it look like a controlled demolition (which, again, it doesn't)?
Ok, follow along please: if the government had planes, and crashed said planes into the buildings, why would they need to put explosives in the buildings? They already had planes!
The answer is no, the idea that 9/11 was an inside job is garbage. It was garbage 14 years ago when it first circulated, it is garbage 14 years later.
"What you think there's opium and oil in Afghanistan?"
-Pictures I've seen, and articles i have read. Some with the US military in it.
What makes these pictures and articles more reliable than all the pictures and articles explaining how the towers fell because murderous Islamic extremists flew into them with hijacked airplanes? If those articles are bull, clearly these articles could be bull too, right?
"How do you know the US didn't invade Saudi Arabia? Have you ever been there?"
-they are allies internationally, no.
Well, if somebody wanted to invade Saudi Arabia without anyone here knowing about it, saying they're our allies would be an awfully good way to divert suspicion, wouldn't it?
"Says who?"
Military procedure, goes to up to the chain of command to the president, in this case Bush was reading a story to kids so it went to Dick Chaney, who chose not to shoot down the plane.
You are an officer in the United States Air Force and have firsthand knowledge of this procedure?
"Whereas normally they have interceptor wings flying close air patrol around all major national landmarks and places of business at all times!"
No, but they would have had some spares somewhere. And from the time of the Hijacking to the hitting of the second tower was more than enough time to prepare.
-8:14: Flight 11 is hijacked
-8:42–8:46 (approx.): Flight 175 is hijacked
-8:50–8:54 (approx.): Flight 77 is hijacked.
-8:58: Flight 175 takes a heading toward New York City.
-9:03:02: Flight 175 crashes
-9:03: President Bush enters a classroom
45 min they had to get the second one...
-9:37:46: Flight 77 crashes into the western side of the Pentagon
and 1 hr and 23min for the pentagon
Yeah, that's the official timeline. Since when do you trust official sources?
"Well, I believe it was a flying elephant, because there is no video evidence of a cruise missile hitting it, nor cruise missile debris."
How do you support that claim with physics?
Any elephant can fly. You just need a big enough catapult. How do you support your claim with physics?
"That's what all the cool people on the internet are saying, but you don't really believe it, do you?"
-I'm not sure, I am still considering both, and how that will effect my perspective.
Well, don't forget to throw my flying elephant hypothesis into your consideration as well.
"How do you know the beams were steel and concrete?"
Yes I'm leaning towards just steel now, so now I'm trying to figure out how the towers didn't bend from the fires, instead of collapse in on themselves at the speed of gravity.
All the engineers say they were steel, but all the engineers also say that what we saw was consistent with the damage caused by two airplanes hitting the towers, so clearly we can't trust what the engineers say. Maybe they were plastic?
"And here you just swallow the official narrative?"
-Yes I am using their narrative and wondering why this conclusion of invading Saudi Arabia didn't happen.
Well, the official narrative also says that Saudi Arabia is our ally, and we don't generally invade allies just because a handful of criminals were born there. But as we discussed above, we need to question that part of the narrative too. Is Saudi Arabia really our ally? Were they really born there? Is it even a real place?
"So no video evidence of these alleged vans then? Convenient."
There is no evidence of black holes either.. There is evidence just hard to find, and hard to believe.
What is this hard-to-find and hard-to-believe evidence? And does its being hard to find and hard to believe make it more reliable than the easy-to-find and easy-to-believe evidence that the towers collapsed because they were hit by jetliners? If so, would evidence that is impossible to find and impossible to believe be even better? Because I can come up with lots of that.
I was using it as a descriptive sense, as you support the government story. If you took offence to that I'm sorry. Calling it a conspiracy is an attempt to discredit it.
@Highroller:
"Warping the structure of a building compromises its structural integrity."
So that all happened evenly all around the whole floor, not just the side the plane his?
Wouldn't this cause the building to fall over to one side if the metal was just warping?
"What rate of acceleration would you think they'd be going at?"
Well I would expect a floor to floor impact that would slow the rate down.
"Twin Towers do not resemble a building collapsing in a controlled demolition."
Yeah i saw it fall to the side and not in on its self...
@Blinking Spirit... why do I bother with this spam.... but whatever...
" Literally anyone can doctor Wikipedia."
doesn't mean its wrong. Please put an argument forth!
"What makes these pictures and articles more reliable "
So you are saying there is no Oil or Opium in Afghanistan..... (my head hurts)
"Well, if somebody wanted to invade Saudi Arabia without anyone here knowing about it, saying they're our allies would be an awfully good way to divert suspicion, wouldn't it?"
Yep, so are you saying the US has invaded Saudi? ..... (my head hurts)
"Because people don't keep asking questions if they think they already know the answer."
So they make you think that, to stop you from asking questions... yep!!!
"What chain of command?"
the one that ends in the President
"You are an officer in the United States Air Force and have firsthand knowledge of this procedure?"
No, don't need to be there are laws....
"Yeah, that's the official timeline. Since when do you trust official sources?"
I don't, do you have anything you want to change?
"Any elephant can fly. You just need a big enough catapult. How do you support your claim with physics?"
A catapult will launch it, not make it fly, it needs wings or a jet for that!
"Well, don't forget to throw my flying elephant hypothesis into your consideration as well."
That is safely thrown out in my head, i hope you can do the same!
"My apologies, then. Clearly you are a conspiracy hypothesist."
that an ad hominem, you sheeple!!
"All the engineers say they were steel, but all the engineers also say that what we saw was consistent with the damage caused by two airplanes hitting the towers, so clearly we can't trust what the engineers say. Maybe they were plastic?" You can, if the government tell you they were plastic you probably belive.
"Is Saudi Arabia really our ally? Were they really born there? Is it even a real place?"
Probably not, but an ally to the central bankers. Don't know, didn't claim there were born there. Countries are imaginary lines drown on the globe, if you believe in the US then you should believe in Saudi Arabia.
"easy-to-believe evidence that the towers collapsed because they were hit by jetliners"
That is where we differ and are debating against, I do agree that they were hit by jetliners but did not collapse because of them.
"I'm just supposed to trust you on these?"
well you asked simple questions, and got simple answers. So yeah believe me if you want, or believe the government.
"So is calling it a "government story"."
Well it is the story of events that the government gave. If you want to be called by something else i suggest you say that now. But you couldn't help by calling me a "conspiracy hypothesist" so why should I grant you the same respect, sheeple?
"Way ahead of you, buddy!"
so far that you are back in the negatives!!!
"You clearly intend this as a passive-aggressive ad hominem"
Yep, I was hoping you would pick up you game, but we are still discussing shi
@Mad Mat
"...rigging the building with explosives, rather than just getting some dudes to hijack some planes..."
A plane would not take down the trade center, but it is a good cover story.
"Because people don't keep asking questions if they think they already know the answer."
So they make you think that, to stop you from asking questions... yep!!!
"They" in this context is the conspiracy hypothesists telling you the US government and al-Qaeda both answer to the same masters. I'd be very pleased if you agreed with this, but unfortunately I suspect you have just lost track of the thread of the conversation. Read back a few posts, you'll see.
"Well, don't forget to throw my flying elephant hypothesis into your consideration as well."
That is safely thrown out in my head, i hope you can do the same!
It can be thrown out exactly as safely as the international banking conspiracy hypothesis can be thrown out. So hey, I'm game if you are.
"My apologies, then. Clearly you are a conspiracy hypothesist."
that an ad hominem, you sheeple!!
Saying that a proposition is unsupported by evidence and is therefore a mere hypothesis, not a theory, is the exact opposite of an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument criticizes the person instead of the proposition; criticizing a proposition for being without evidence is criticizing the proposition.
"All the engineers say they were steel, but all the engineers also say that what we saw was consistent with the damage caused by two airplanes hitting the towers, so clearly we can't trust what the engineers say. Maybe they were plastic?" You can, if the government tell you they were plastic you probably belive.
No, the government says they were steel. I'm saying they might have been plastic because we're not supposed to trust what the government says.
"I'm just supposed to trust you on these?"
well you asked simple questions, and got simple answers. So yeah believe me if you want, or believe the government.
Are those my only two options? Is this how "supporting facts" really works? Is the truth just a matter of picking sides? The government says one thing, some random guy on the internet says another, and I have to pick one to believe? What's all this about "evidence" I keep hearing about, then?
And what happens when you are repeating what the government has said? Donald Rumsfeld is a government source, so if you say what he says, you and the government are saying the same thing. What am I supposed to do then? I can't trust the government, so I have to trust you, but if I trust you then I'm trusting the government!
"...rigging the building with explosives, rather than just getting some dudes to hijack some planes..."
A plane would not take down the trade center, but it is a good cover story.
Generally, if something cannot happen, then it is not a good cover story.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
@Blinking Spirit: I'm going to miss some of your points/questions because they are not adding to the, if you feel I have left out an important one, please add to the argument so I can respond to it better.
"How would the President know what al-Qaeda was thinking?"
Through the CIA, Al Qaeda was trained by the CIA and mean 'the database'.
"You trust the laws? Your skepticism is very hit-and-miss, I must say."
Just because i don't trust them doesn't mean I can't use them in an argument if others are using them... Please rather than attack me respond to the argument! As I have mentioned above a number of times.
"If you don't trust it, why are you citing it as evidence?"
Just because i don't trust them doesn't mean I can't use them in an argument if others are using them...
But I do agree with the timeline, Just because the have a correct timeline doesn't mean they can't lie about something else.
"No, the government says they were steel. I'm saying they might have been plastic because we're not supposed to trust what the government says."
Well you need some evidence to put that argument forth, like: 'there was molten plastic in the clean up that can been seen when the excavators are digging' or some BS like that, and a link to the plastic pic would be nice!!
"Are those my only two options?"
You should form your own opinion!
"And what you gave is a hypothesis about a conspiracy."
What happens when conspiracy becomes fact?
Like the Nazis false flag on the Reichstag, they set it alight, the blamed it on a disabled man.
Later the facts were reveled and is this a 'conspiracy theory' or history?
"That's funny, I was hoping the same thing. Do you still not understand what's going on here?"
you are being a sarcastic fool and not adding anything to the arguments. can you please leave this thread.. or put an argument forth. And I'm being a nice fool and responding to your idiocracy.
"Generally, if something cannot happen, then it is not a good cover story."
Well the Jesus story seemed to create a whole religion... pretty good cover story as the son of god for Marry the Prostitute!!
Some people, as you like to call them 'conspiracy theorists', do not think it is a good cover story, and have come up with some reasons why it is. Please can you respond to their reasoning if you want to reply, without your sarcastic remarks! I know your a mod n all and have the power, but can you please stop with the sarcasm and add to the discussion!
If you are having trouble putting an argument forth, (which it looks like you are) I would recommend this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rItm9j4vg_Q (it has nothing to say about 9/11)
Can you please watch it before responding!!!
@Mad Mat:
"Why would a plane not take down the trade center? "
Well as can be seen in 9/11 the planes did not take down the centers, it was the office fires that were smoldering for 1hr+ that melted the steel... as the 'government story'
"More importantly, why would it be important to take down the trade center (and not just fly a plane full of people into it)? "
The building required more upkeep that what it was worth.
To demolish the insider trading records.
for an insurance claim.
"why the hell would they try to fake it?"
To go to WAR!!!! To get oil and drugs
Halliburton, Dick Chaney's company has had over %700 increase since 9/11
Bush and Chaney are now considered terrorists by Venezuela
-I wonder if that government does not believe the 'official' 9/11 story.
@Highroller:
"Warping the structure of a building compromises its structural integrity."
So that all happened evenly all around the whole floor, not just the side the plane his?
No. The temperature was unevenly distributed, which played a factor in the building's collapse.
Wouldn't this cause the building to fall over to one side if the metal was just warping?
What held the floors of the building up? Its steel structural supports. What happens when steel is subjected to high heat? It both loses its strength, and it warps. What happens when structural supports of steel lose their strength and begin to expand unevenly in multiple floors of a building? They're not going to be able to hold up a structure.
Think about it, imagine you're lifting a heavy barbell over your head. Now imagine your arms lose a large percentage of their strength and begin to expand at uneven rates. Are you going to be able to hold that weight as efficiently? No, you would not. You would drop the weight.
But why did the building not collapse to one side instead of imploding? The steel supports lost their strength and warped, causing some to buckle, which resulted in the weight that was applied to the remaining supports, which were quickly overwhelmed in turn. The World Trade Center was built to survive a plane crash, but it wasn't built to withstand a massive jet fuel fire resulting in the structural integrity of the floors giving way and multiple floors colliding down on top of it.
There's also the fact that buildings aren't completely solid. A big obelisk the size of a Tower might have collapsed sideways, but skyscraper is largely comprised of air. That's why it will implode onto itself.
Third, the building had no lateral acceleration. Remember, a body at rest wants to stay at rest. That's inertia. The impact of a plane would not alter the center of gravity of a building that massive, and the structural supports buckled too quickly and the building collapsed too fast for any significant acceleration to occur except for straight down.
"What rate of acceleration would you think they'd be going at?"
Well I would expect a floor to floor impact that would slow the rate down.
Oh, I see what you mean. Well, that's what happened.
If you're asking why the Towers fell at the speed of free-fall, the answer is they didn't. The speed of the Towers collapsing was fast, but not free-fall.
"Twin Towers do not resemble a building collapsing in a controlled demolition."
Yeah i saw it fall to the side and not in on its self...
Yes, it did collapse on itself. This has been explained.
Meanwhile, let's look at the controlled demolition theory. Have you seen a controlled demolition? What's the key word here? Right, "demolition." There are bombs involved. So, where were the bombs on 9/11, since you're so convinced they were there? Watch a controlled demolition. You can see and hear bombs going off in a building prior to collapse. They're not subtle. Where were these bombs on 9/11 you are so convinced are there for no reason?
A plane would not take down the trade center, but it is a good cover story.
First, it wasn't the plane impact, it was the resulting fire and the ramifications of that to the structural integrity of the supports.
Second, a good cover story for what, exactly? According to your narrative, the government arranged the plane crashes. So the government had a cover story of planes crashing into buildings to cover up the planes crashing into buildings?
Oh, I guess there were bombs as well. So, why not just have the terrorists plant bombs and forego the planes?
@Highroller:
"No. The temperature was unevenly distributed, which played a factor in the building's collapse."
If one side of the buildings columns were 'melting/warping' then that would have cause the building to tip over not collapse in on its self.
"unevenly in multiple floors of a building?"
Fall to the side not collapse in on its self.
"Think about it, imagine you're lifting a heavy barbell over your head. Now imagine your arms"
Imagine one of your arms was hit, the barbell would fall to the side, not on top of you!
"The World Trade Center was built to survive a plane crash"
Agreed!!!
"massive jet fuel fire"
3 second jetfuel fireball is not a massive jet fuel fire that last for 1h, that could melt/weaken 2inch thick steel, If the jetfuell fire lasted for an hour I would be inclined to think your way... maybe...
"but skyscraper is largely comprised of air."
Steel coulombs in this case! there is air inside.
"Third, the building had no lateral acceleration."
Correct, but the uneven melting of steel
"That's what happened."
There was no delay, from the floors hitting other floors, It came down at the same speed of a controlled demolition.
" they were falling so fast vertically that they hit the ground before they could gain any major acceleration horizontally."
And these office fires that heated the beams unevenly cause the 'falling so fast vertically' That each floor collapsed at the same time?
"Of course it collapsed in on itself. This has been explained."
The explanation does not fit nature
" Have you seen a controlled demolition? What's the key word here? Right, "demolition." There are bombs involved."
Not in real life, but videos. Controlled! Yes there were bombs, or charges. Many firemen and others have testified that they heard explosions.
As can be seen in one of the image I uploaded, there is molten metal spraying out from a charge going off from the plane hit, what is your explanation? In this other images taken from 9/11 It can be seen that some of the coulombs have been cut on an angle just the same as a controlled demolition would use. Days/weeks later it can been seen there is still molten metal at the base of the building, how did this get here if it was not from demolition charges? Do you think the fires melted the steel to molten metal?
"You trust the laws? Your skepticism is very hit-and-miss, I must say."
Just because i don't trust them doesn't mean I can't use them in an argument if others are using them... Please rather than attack me respond to the argument! As I have mentioned above a number of times.
Pointing out that your standards of evidence are inconsistent is responding to your argument. And yes, not trusting evidence does mean you can't use it in an argument if others are using it. An unreliable source doesn't suddenly become reliable when it says something you agree with.
"No, the government says they were steel. I'm saying they might have been plastic because we're not supposed to trust what the government says."
Well you need some evidence to put that argument forth, like: 'there was molten plastic in the clean up that can been seen when the excavators are digging' or some BS like that, and a link to the plastic pic would be nice!!
So we should believe the official story in the absence of hard evidence to the contrary? Okay. Why don't you do that?
"And what you gave is a hypothesis about a conspiracy."
What happens when conspiracy becomes fact?
Like the Nazis false flag on the Reichstag, they set it alight, the blamed it on a disabled man.
Later the facts were reveled and is this a 'conspiracy theory' or history?
Aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself, here? Your conspiracy hypothesis is not fact.
"That's funny, I was hoping the same thing. Do you still not understand what's going on here?"
you are being a sarcastic fool and not adding anything to the arguments. can you please leave this thread.. or put an argument forth. And I'm being a nice fool and responding to your idiocracy.
Okay. Cards on the table. I'm using exactly the same form of reasoning you are. I'm simply turning it on the conspiracy hypothesis rather than the terrorist hypothesis. You question the "official story"; I question your story. Have you not noticed all the parallels I've been drawing? I didn't think I was being subtle. This is my argument: that reasoning as you and other conspiracy theorists do, uncritically accepting and repeating any statement that supports your desired position (like "The Pentagon was hit by something which was not a passenger airliner") while being arbitrarily skeptical of any statement that contradicts it (like "Tall buildings really do collapse straight down when their supports are weakened"), is inconsistent, frustrating, and completely unproductive. When regular people try to engage you in a real conversation about this issue, they rapidly grow aggravated with you. You know this. You're clearly very sensitive to getting shut down with verbal abuse, given your repeated complaints about "ad hominems" -- it doesn't take a psychic to guess that you've been subjected to that treatment more than a few times. And now, you're trying to shut me down with verbal abuse. That is not a coincidence. That is the tables being turned. Your aggravation with me is our aggravation with you. That feeling you have, like you're trying to fight a swamp, progress is impossible and everything stinks, that's how we feel.
If you are having trouble putting an argument forth, (which it looks like you are) I would recommend this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rItm9j4vg_Q (it has nothing to say about 9/11)
Can you please watch it before responding!!!
I think I'm good, but thanks for your concern.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
@Blinking Spirit
sorry but I am only going to respond to Highroller, Mad Mat, and others, your points are irreverent to 9/11 as you are pretty much still attacking me and not the argument. so please, stop.
"And yes, not trusting evidence does mean you can't use it in an argument if others are using it."
Where did i say that i don't trust this evidence of the timeline? But if others are using it for their argument, then of course i can use it in mine, i can agree or disagree and put forth another argument.
If you are having trouble putting an argument forth, (which it looks like you are) I would recommend this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rItm9j4vg_Q (it has nothing to say about 9/11)
Can you please watch it before responding!!!
PS Blinking Spirit: Just out of curiosity, what nationality and/or religion are you?
@Blinking Spirit
sorry but I am only going to respond to Highroller, Mad Mat, and others, your points are irreverent to 9/11 as you are pretty much still attacking me and not the argument. so please, stop.
No, he's attacking the argument. You just don't like that he's winning.
@Blinking Spirit
sorry but I am only going to respond to Highroller, Mad Mat, and others, your points are irreverent to 9/11 as you are pretty much still attacking me and not the argument.
This is my argument: that reasoning as you and other conspiracy theorists do, uncritically accepting and repeating any statement that supports your desired position (like "The Pentagon was hit by something which was not a passenger airliner") while being arbitrarily skeptical of any statement that contradicts it (like "Tall buildings really do collapse straight down when their supports are weakened"), is inconsistent, frustrating, and completely unproductive.
Do I need to rephrase this more simply?
Your argument is bad because you say things without evidence and because you ignore evidence of other things.
Unless I'm very much mistaken, that's an attack on your argument. Complaining that I'm attacking you instead of your argument does not make it so. It just makes it so that you're attacking me instead of my argument.
You rather undermine your own point here when you continue to address me and even ask me questions. If you want to put your foot down like this, you actually have to follow through with it.
Steel melting temp 1510c, Jet fuel burning temperature 1000c).
This is factually incorrect, steel doesn't have a fixed melting point- it's an alloy, so it varies. Even if you where going off average, it's more like 1370c not 1510.
Steel melting temp 1510c, Jet fuel burning temperature 1000c).
This is factually incorrect, steel doesn't have a fixed melting point- it's an alloy, so it varies. Even if you where going off average, it's more like 1370c not 1510.
I think it's also worth noting that continually applying heat to an object that is not a perfect conductor of heat over a period of time will increase the temperature of the object beyond the temperature of the source heat.
As an example, the ignition temperature of wood varies, but most woods will have an ignition temperature under 500 degrees Fahrenheit. I start my wood-fired oven by igniting kindling with a normal kitchen lighter. The kindling heats up the logs, which eventually ignite. By the time I'm actually cooking my pizza, the oven is sitting at 700-900 degrees Fahrenheit, depending on the location within the oven. This I can confirm with my IR thermometer.
Clearly, the wood is not burning at 900 degrees, and yet parts of the oven reach that temperature. By your logic, Typho0nn, this is not possible. And yet, it happens every single week.
@DJK3654
"it's more like 1370c not 1510."
Still the fires were not hot enough to cause the molten metal to be splattering out the picture.
"Blinking Spirit was a fictional character all along! "
-explains a lot.
@Lithl
"Clearly, the wood is not burning at 900 degrees, and yet parts of the oven reach that temperature. By your logic, Typho0nn, this is not possible. And yet, it happens every single week."
-The fire is burning at 900deg not the wood. That was not my logic, that is your logic and asserted it as mine. Please do not put 'words in my mouth'!
"It will lose virtually all of its strength by 1000°C"
The fires were not burning evenly around the building at 1000c to cause an internal buckle/collapse, if one side was burning at 1000c for 1h+ then the building would have bent to one side. Steel will not all of a sudden give way all at once, it will bend first.
"None of this has anything to do with my question. Namely, there is no reason to crash the planes if the conspiracy has access to explosives anyway."
For a cover story
"None of this has anything to do with my question. Namely, there is no reason to crash the planes if the conspiracy has access to explosives anyway."
For a cover story
Couldn't the cover story just have been "Islamic extremist terrorists masterminded by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and affiliated with Osama bin Laden planted bombs in the towers"? It's not like that hadn't happened before.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
@Lithl
"Clearly, the wood is not burning at 900 degrees, and yet parts of the oven reach that temperature. By your logic, Typho0nn, this is not possible. And yet, it happens every single week."
-The fire is burning at 900deg not the wood. That was not my logic, that is your logic and asserted it as mine. Please do not put 'words in my mouth'!
What words did I put in your mouth? You cited a difference between the temperature of burning jet fuel and the melting point of steel, implying that it's impossible for burning jet fuel to melt steel.
However, you don't seem to have read my post. The fire is not burning at 900 degrees in my oven. The fire is much cooler than that, but because the oven bricks are constantly receiving heat and they cannot radiate heat at the same rate, the oven's temperature rises above the temperature of the fire. I have demonstrated on a small scale that it is possible for something to be heated to a temperature higher than that which is providing the heat. In order to continue asserting that a fire started by burning jet fuel cannot melt steel, you now have to show that the temperature difference is too large to be a possibility.
@Mad Mat:
"Sure, a fireworks explosion is very comparable to a collission with an airplane"
I'm comparing the ~1hr office fires that cant been seen that took down the trade centers, to the ~4 hour fire that left the structure intact that was blazing, can been seen from miles away and that left the structure intact that was.
"If one critical part fails" .. " the others will instantly"
There is more than one critical part in the trade centers. Buildings are not designed with one critical part.
"What's wrong with "terrorists plant bombs, make building explode"?"
Depends what 'terrorists' you are talking about, Venezuela has declared Bush and Chaney Terrorists. The middle Easter 'terrorists' did not have the resources in America to set up explosives 3 weeks prior. The Israel Secret Service would have the resources.
"No, he's attacking the argument. You just don't like that he's winning."
lets decide the winner later...
@Lithl
"What words did I put in your mouth?"
This V
"Clearly, the wood is not burning at 900 degrees, and yet parts of the oven reach that temperature. By your logic, Typho0nn, this is not possible."
"The fire is not burning at 900 degrees in my oven."
The fire would be, the bricks spread the heat and cool it down so the oven does not reach 1000.
This is a good point and can be used on the coulombs in the trade center as they are made of metal and good conductors of heat. The heat should have been dispersed up and down the 2inch thick coulombs not allowing them to even reach the temperature of a small office fire say 1000deg F
As a cool experiment we should get one of the twin tower 2inch thick coulombs, then pile all the office equipment around it and see it we can weaken it by 'office fire'.
Ahhhhh fk I'll try Blinking Spirit one more time, since he/she seems to be trying a bit more...
@Blinking Spirit
"Your argument is bad because you say things without evidence and because you ignore evidence of other things."
Instead of saying this you should point out where I say things without evidence, and then give evidence of the things I missed.
"uncritically accepting and repeating"
The government has lied to the people on a number of occasions, like the CIA running drugs, cought by Micheal C Ruppert. We are being quite the opposite and being super critical of the governments stories. So you saying 'uncritically' is an ad hominem attack as it does not address the argument and is your opinion on how we are interpreting things.
Here are some Engineers and Architects that are being 'uncritical' http://www.ae911truth.org/
""The Pentagon was hit by something which was not a passenger airliner""
I am looking for video evidence to prove this, do you have any? I am open to my mind being change, as can be seen by the edit in the first post!
"Tall buildings really do collapse straight down when their supports are weakened"
Please explain how this happened in relation to 9/11, there have been many fires in multistory buildings that have not made it collapse, the twin towers are a special case.
"Complaining that I'm attacking you instead of your argument does not make it so. It just makes it so that you're attacking me instead of my argument."
In previous posts It can be seen you attack me and not the argument, its recorded:
"And here you just swallow the official narrative?"
"Gravity is just a theory!"
"Pssh. That's just what they want you to think."
"Well, I believe it was a flying elephant"
"This is getting boring"
"San Lorenzan Bokononist."
"You don't want to know what I really think, but it rhymes with schmantisemite."
to name some. If you want me to further explain how these are not attacking the argument and attacking the person, please ask!
"Tall buildings really do collapse straight down when their supports are weakened"
Please explain how this happened in relation to 9/11, there have been many fires in multistory buildings that have not made it collapse, the twin towers are a special case.
Really? How many of those fires involved planes colliding into buildings?
Buildings are built to withstand fires, sure. But the Twin Towers were not capable, as it turns out, of withstanding a jet's worth of jet fuel burning over multiple floors. That much fuel burning that hot warped the structural supports.
And let's clarify what that means, because:
If one side of the buildings columns were 'melting/warping'
Warping is not the same thing as melting. The steel bars warped due to the heat, meaning they expanded, as things do when heated.
@Mad Mat
"of withstanding a jet's worth of jet fuel burning over multiple floors."
the jet fuel only lasted for ~3 seconds, not enough to warp steel 2 inches of steel.
There are images of molten steel spray out from the towers that I have posted. How did this melt then?
'Conspiracy' explanation, a charge went off when it was hit by the plane.
Sounds pretty simple and logical to me.
"We're going to blow up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, so that we can acquire oil!"
"Oh, how are we going to blow them up?"
"We'll drive trucks full of explosive charges in at night!"
"And then say that it was terrorists driving the trucks?"
"No, that's too simple, what we'll do is also fly planes into the towers."
"But won't people realize that jet fuel can't melt steel beams?"
"They might, but we'll systematically bribe or coerce a vast number of engineering experts to say otherwise."
"What about the Pentagon? A plane there, too?"
"No, at the Pentagon we'll use a cruise missile, but tell people it was a plane!"
"But won't people figure it out when there's no plane debris?"
"...You're really overthinking this"
"Okay, but who will we go to war with for oil? Saudi Arabia? Venezuela? Iran?"
"No, Afghanistan!"
"But they're ranked near the bottom in oil reserves, between Guatemala and Suriname. I guess we'll have Afghanis flying the planes?"
"No, we'll tell people it was a bunch of Saudis, but then attack Afghanistan anyway!"
"We're going to blow up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, so that we can acquire oil!"
"Oh, how are we going to blow them up?"
"We'll drive trucks full of explosive charges in at night!"
"And then say that it was terrorists driving the trucks?"
"No, that's too simple, what we'll do is also fly planes into the towers."
"But won't people realize that jet fuel can't melt steel beams?"
"They might, but we'll systematically bribe or coerce a vast number of engineering experts to say otherwise."
"What about the Pentagon? A plane there, too?"
"No, at the Pentagon we'll use a cruise missile, but tell people it was a plane!"
"But won't people figure it out when there's no plane debris?"
"...You're really overthinking this"
"Okay, but who will we go to war with for oil? Saudi Arabia? Venezuela? Iran?"
"No, Afghanistan!"
"But they're ranked near the bottom in oil reserves, between Guatemala and Suriname. I guess we'll have Afghanis flying the planes?"
"No, we'll tell people it was a bunch of Saudis, but then attack Afghanistan anyway!"
This all makes perfect sense.
So another sarcastic spam argument.
No the convo didn't go down like that. Nobody is claiming how the convo went down.
If that makes perfect sense to you, please leave the thread!
I would GUESS it would be more like this:
"How are we going to get a Rothchild central bank into these middle eastern countries and have then under the NWO/Illumanati/Elite business owners control."
"then we can also take control of the OPIUM and oil fields, and profit of that too!"
"We will create an event that allows us to go to war to destabilize these countries."
"the world trade centers have too much upkeep, and we can hide insider trading if they were to be destroyed"
"Well we can't be seen to destroy them, and we need a reason to go to the middle east. Why don't we use Al Qaeda that the CIA trained to hijack planes and fly them into it"
"Well the buildings are made to withstand a plane hit, so we better have explosives in them to take them down, and we can use the planes as a cover story"
"we also need to get rid of WTC7 so load that up with explosives too, then we can blame it on office fires from the tower collapse"
"we will also announce that 2.3 Trillion has gone missing from the Pentagon a day before, and hit that to cover it up"
*I am still wondering if it was a plane or missile that hit the pentagon, I am open to change!! And if a plane did hit it, how would this change the narrative. Of course if it was a missile then it would all be lies. So I want to see a video of a plane hitting it, like we have a video of the twin towers and WTC7. With so many cameras watching to the pentagon and from the pentagon, there should be better evidence of this. It is possible to plant evidence of a plane in the pentagon in a wing that was under construction, or take evidence of a missile away. The possibility is there.
So another sarcastic spam argument.
No the convo didn't go down like that. Nobody is claiming how the convo went down.
If that makes perfect sense to you, please leave the thread!
Every line seems to match your proposed explanation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Some people believe the government story and support the wars. Other like myself believe it was a false flag event and despise the wars.
It is causing quite a division in society. The government supporters normally go on the offensive and ad hominem the 'conspiracy theorists' straight away, so please keep the ad hominems out!! Lets focus on the facts and argue them! (A fact can be about nature eg. Steel melting temp 1510c, Jet fuel burning temperature 1000c).
I will give my side, and the reasons why, and if you disagree or agree you can add to the discussion with your own argument supported by some points or 'facts'.
-Six months before the 9/11 attacks the World Trade Center was "privatized" by being leased to a private sector developer.
-Larry Silverstein awarded $4.6 billion after
-3 weeks up to 9/11 White vans seen entering WTC's at night while vacant.
-Stolen Video recording of these weeks.
-9/10 Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon
-On 9/11 two hijacked planes were flown into two World Trade Centers.
-15/19 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia
-3 second Jet Fuel fire ball, or ~1hr small oxygen staved office fires, are not enough to melt steel beams
-And in the case of the building core, Concrete encased columns.
-The Towers Came down at the speed of gravity, LIKE a controlled demolition
-WTC7 similary came down at the speed of gravity, no fires can be seen
-The Pentagon was hit by something which was not a passenger airliner
-I believe it was hit by a cruise missile, because there is no video evidence of an airliner hitting it. There was no Airline debris found around the pentagon. There would have to be 100's of cameras watching it, and watching out from it. But it might be a hijacked plane, in which case where was the air force.
-The airforce was not there because it was conveniently on a training mission.
-Procedure would be to intercept and shoot down.
-The 'terrorists' knew this and therefore did not fear them.
-This would mean Al CIAda and the US government are controlled by the same people.
-The US invades Afghanistan n Iraq, leaving Saudi Arabia alone.
-The US went to Afghanistan to take control of the oil fields and opium production
And the following war with ISIL.
-If Al Qeada and the US government are controlled by the same people, that would lead me to believe that ISIS is controlled by them.
-1 Traitor traded for 5 Islamic leaders
-US leave Iraq, leaving all weapons behind for ISIS
-Kurds make ground against ISIS, Turkey bombs the Kurds
-Turkey buys oil from ISIS, Russia catches them, Turkey shoots down Russian Jet.
-Turkey is NATO ally, Obama bombs a hospital.
-This would lead me to believe that the US government wants ISIS there, to get into Syria to over throw Assad. To put a Rothschild controlled central bank in the country and to get their oil!
I'm probably missing lots of things, but please add them to the discussion, and keep it nice!!!
Here is a reference video that explains my points better about 9/11 by Micheal C. Ruppert (who caught the CIA bringing drugs into America.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy9JCDchk34
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Was it?
So they say.
Did you see them?
So no video evidence of these alleged vans then? Convenient.
Did he really, though?
And here you just swallow the official narrative?
How do you know the beams were steel and concrete?
Gravity is just a theory!
That's what all the cool people on the internet are saying, but you don't really believe it, do you?
Well, I believe it was a flying elephant, because there is no video evidence of a cruise missile hitting it, nor cruise missile debris.
Whereas normally they have interceptor wings flying close air patrol around all major national landmarks and places of business at all times!
Says who?
How do you know what they know? Did you ask them? Are you in league with them?
Pssh. That's just what they want you to think.
How do you know the US didn't invade Saudi Arabia? Have you ever been there?
What makes you think there's opium and oil in Afghanistan?
This is getting boring, so let's just cut to the chase: what war with ISIL?
...yeah, probably.
This is me being nice. You don't want to know what I really think, but it rhymes with schmantisemite.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"This is me being nice. You don't want to know what I really think, but it rhymes with schmantisemite."
-Thats not being nice, you saying your being nice doesn't make it nice when you add "You don't want to know what I really think, but it rhymes with schmantisemite." to the end.
"...yeah, probably."
- go on then...
"what war with ISIL?"
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intervention_against_ISIL
"What you think there's opium and oil in Afghanistan?"
-Pictures I've seen, and articles i have read. Some with the US military in it.
"How do you know the US didn't invade Saudi Arabia? Have you ever been there?"
-they are allies internationally, no.
"Pssh. That's just what they want you to think."
-why?
"How do you know what they know? Did you ask them? Are you in league with them?"
-Logical conclusion from the chain of command. No. No.
"Says who?"
Military procedure, goes to up to the chain of command to the president, in this case Bush was reading a story to kids so it went to Dick Chaney, who chose not to shoot down the plane.
"Whereas normally they have interceptor wings flying close air patrol around all major national landmarks and places of business at all times!"
No, but they would have had some spares somewhere. And from the time of the Hijacking to the hitting of the second tower was more than enough time to prepare.
-8:14: Flight 11 is hijacked
-8:42–8:46 (approx.): Flight 175 is hijacked
-8:50–8:54 (approx.): Flight 77 is hijacked.
-8:58: Flight 175 takes a heading toward New York City.
-9:03:02: Flight 175 crashes
-9:03: President Bush enters a classroom
45 min they had to get the second one...
-9:37:46: Flight 77 crashes into the western side of the Pentagon
and 1 hr and 23min for the pentagon
"Well, I believe it was a flying elephant, because there is no video evidence of a cruise missile hitting it, nor cruise missile debris."
How do you support that claim with physics?
"That's what all the cool people on the internet are saying, but you don't really believe it, do you?"
-I'm not sure, I am still considering both, and how that will effect my perspective.
"Gravity is just a theory!"
Theories are our best knowledge, based of facts. Hypothesis, are unproven ideas.
"How do you know the beams were steel and concrete?"
Yes I'm leaning towards just steel now, so now I'm trying to figure out how the towers didn't bend from the fires, instead of collapse in on themselves at the speed of gravity.
"And here you just swallow the official narrative?"
-Yes I am using their narrative and wondering why this conclusion of invading Saudi Arabia didn't happen.
"Did he really, though?"
-yep
"So no video evidence of these alleged vans then? Convenient."
There is no evidence of black holes either.. There is evidence just hard to find, and hard to believe.
"Did you see them?"
Nope
"So they say."
They say so.
"Was it?"
Yes
"Surely "conspiracy theorist" is no more of an ad hominem than "government supporter"."
I was using it as a descriptive sense, as you support the government story. If you took offence to that I'm sorry. Calling it a conspiracy is an attempt to discredit it.
Theories, they are, yesss.... (as mentioned above
So I don't think you really added much, got some good questions in there and some sarcastic ones, which I was trying to get people to stay away from... But cant be helped... free speech!! <3 Can tell a persons intelligence by the way the argue.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
They didn't have to melt the steel beams. It was a fire from jet fuel. It was ridiculously hot. Heat causes metal to expand. Warping the structure of a building compromises its structural integrity.
There is no such thing as "speed of gravity."
There's the rate at which gravity accelerates things, ~9.8 m/s^2, and... Yeah, that's how things fall. What rate of acceleration would you think they'd be going at?
In the sense that a building fell down, yes, that's like a controlled demolition. However, the Twin Towers do not resemble a building collapsing in a controlled demolition.
There's also the internal logic: you're telling me that the government was able to orchestrate multiple planes being hijacked AND keep it a perfect secret that it was an internal job. Yet these people were also dumb enough to put explosives in the Twin Towers and only to botch it up by deciding to make it look like a controlled demolition (which, again, it doesn't)?
Ok, follow along please: if the government had planes, and crashed said planes into the buildings, why would they need to put explosives in the buildings? They already had planes!
The answer is no, the idea that 9/11 was an inside job is garbage. It was garbage 14 years ago when it first circulated, it is garbage 14 years later.
What makes these pictures and articles more reliable than all the pictures and articles explaining how the towers fell because murderous Islamic extremists flew into them with hijacked airplanes? If those articles are bull, clearly these articles could be bull too, right?
Well, if somebody wanted to invade Saudi Arabia without anyone here knowing about it, saying they're our allies would be an awfully good way to divert suspicion, wouldn't it?
Because people don't keep asking questions if they think they already know the answer.
What chain of command?
You are an officer in the United States Air Force and have firsthand knowledge of this procedure?
Yeah, that's the official timeline. Since when do you trust official sources?
Any elephant can fly. You just need a big enough catapult. How do you support your claim with physics?
Well, don't forget to throw my flying elephant hypothesis into your consideration as well.
My apologies, then. Clearly you are a conspiracy hypothesist.
All the engineers say they were steel, but all the engineers also say that what we saw was consistent with the damage caused by two airplanes hitting the towers, so clearly we can't trust what the engineers say. Maybe they were plastic?
Well, the official narrative also says that Saudi Arabia is our ally, and we don't generally invade allies just because a handful of criminals were born there. But as we discussed above, we need to question that part of the narrative too. Is Saudi Arabia really our ally? Were they really born there? Is it even a real place?
What is this hard-to-find and hard-to-believe evidence? And does its being hard to find and hard to believe make it more reliable than the easy-to-find and easy-to-believe evidence that the towers collapsed because they were hit by jetliners? If so, would evidence that is impossible to find and impossible to believe be even better? Because I can come up with lots of that.
I'm just supposed to trust you on these? And you're just supposed to trust whatever source you got them from?
So is calling it a "government story".
Way ahead of you, buddy!
You clearly intend this as a passive-aggressive ad hominem, but I'm using the Socratic method here, so...
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"Warping the structure of a building compromises its structural integrity."
So that all happened evenly all around the whole floor, not just the side the plane his?
Wouldn't this cause the building to fall over to one side if the metal was just warping?
"What rate of acceleration would you think they'd be going at?"
Well I would expect a floor to floor impact that would slow the rate down.
"Twin Towers do not resemble a building collapsing in a controlled demolition."
Yeah i saw it fall to the side and not in on its self...
@Blinking Spirit... why do I bother with this spam.... but whatever...
" Literally anyone can doctor Wikipedia."
doesn't mean its wrong. Please put an argument forth!
"What makes these pictures and articles more reliable "
So you are saying there is no Oil or Opium in Afghanistan..... (my head hurts)
"Well, if somebody wanted to invade Saudi Arabia without anyone here knowing about it, saying they're our allies would be an awfully good way to divert suspicion, wouldn't it?"
Yep, so are you saying the US has invaded Saudi? ..... (my head hurts)
"Because people don't keep asking questions if they think they already know the answer."
So they make you think that, to stop you from asking questions... yep!!!
"What chain of command?"
the one that ends in the President
"You are an officer in the United States Air Force and have firsthand knowledge of this procedure?"
No, don't need to be there are laws....
"Yeah, that's the official timeline. Since when do you trust official sources?"
I don't, do you have anything you want to change?
"Any elephant can fly. You just need a big enough catapult. How do you support your claim with physics?"
A catapult will launch it, not make it fly, it needs wings or a jet for that!
"Well, don't forget to throw my flying elephant hypothesis into your consideration as well."
That is safely thrown out in my head, i hope you can do the same!
"My apologies, then. Clearly you are a conspiracy hypothesist."
that an ad hominem, you sheeple!!
"All the engineers say they were steel, but all the engineers also say that what we saw was consistent with the damage caused by two airplanes hitting the towers, so clearly we can't trust what the engineers say. Maybe they were plastic?" You can, if the government tell you they were plastic you probably belive.
"Is Saudi Arabia really our ally? Were they really born there? Is it even a real place?"
Probably not, but an ally to the central bankers. Don't know, didn't claim there were born there. Countries are imaginary lines drown on the globe, if you believe in the US then you should believe in Saudi Arabia.
"easy-to-believe evidence that the towers collapsed because they were hit by jetliners"
That is where we differ and are debating against, I do agree that they were hit by jetliners but did not collapse because of them.
"I'm just supposed to trust you on these?"
well you asked simple questions, and got simple answers. So yeah believe me if you want, or believe the government.
"So is calling it a "government story"."
Well it is the story of events that the government gave. If you want to be called by something else i suggest you say that now. But you couldn't help by calling me a "conspiracy hypothesist" so why should I grant you the same respect, sheeple?
"Way ahead of you, buddy!"
so far that you are back in the negatives!!!
"You clearly intend this as a passive-aggressive ad hominem"
Yep, I was hoping you would pick up you game, but we are still discussing shi
@Mad Mat
"...rigging the building with explosives, rather than just getting some dudes to hijack some planes..."
A plane would not take down the trade center, but it is a good cover story.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Doesn't feel so great, does it?
"They" in this context is the conspiracy hypothesists telling you the US government and al-Qaeda both answer to the same masters. I'd be very pleased if you agreed with this, but unfortunately I suspect you have just lost track of the thread of the conversation. Read back a few posts, you'll see.
How would the President know what al-Qaeda was thinking?
You trust the laws? Your skepticism is very hit-and-miss, I must say.
If you don't trust it, why are you citing it as evidence?
It can be thrown out exactly as safely as the international banking conspiracy hypothesis can be thrown out. So hey, I'm game if you are.
Saying that a proposition is unsupported by evidence and is therefore a mere hypothesis, not a theory, is the exact opposite of an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument criticizes the person instead of the proposition; criticizing a proposition for being without evidence is criticizing the proposition.
What's worse, "sheeple" isn't even singular.
No, the government says they were steel. I'm saying they might have been plastic because we're not supposed to trust what the government says.
Are those my only two options? Is this how "supporting facts" really works? Is the truth just a matter of picking sides? The government says one thing, some random guy on the internet says another, and I have to pick one to believe? What's all this about "evidence" I keep hearing about, then?
And what happens when you are repeating what the government has said? Donald Rumsfeld is a government source, so if you say what he says, you and the government are saying the same thing. What am I supposed to do then? I can't trust the government, so I have to trust you, but if I trust you then I'm trusting the government!
And what you gave is a hypothesis about a conspiracy.
That's funny, I was hoping the same thing. Do you still not understand what's going on here?
Generally, if something cannot happen, then it is not a good cover story.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"How would the President know what al-Qaeda was thinking?"
Through the CIA, Al Qaeda was trained by the CIA and mean 'the database'.
"You trust the laws? Your skepticism is very hit-and-miss, I must say."
Just because i don't trust them doesn't mean I can't use them in an argument if others are using them... Please rather than attack me respond to the argument! As I have mentioned above a number of times.
"If you don't trust it, why are you citing it as evidence?"
Just because i don't trust them doesn't mean I can't use them in an argument if others are using them...
But I do agree with the timeline, Just because the have a correct timeline doesn't mean they can't lie about something else.
"No, the government says they were steel. I'm saying they might have been plastic because we're not supposed to trust what the government says."
Well you need some evidence to put that argument forth, like: 'there was molten plastic in the clean up that can been seen when the excavators are digging' or some BS like that, and a link to the plastic pic would be nice!!
"Are those my only two options?"
You should form your own opinion!
"And what you gave is a hypothesis about a conspiracy."
What happens when conspiracy becomes fact?
Like the Nazis false flag on the Reichstag, they set it alight, the blamed it on a disabled man.
Later the facts were reveled and is this a 'conspiracy theory' or history?
"That's funny, I was hoping the same thing. Do you still not understand what's going on here?"
you are being a sarcastic fool and not adding anything to the arguments. can you please leave this thread.. or put an argument forth. And I'm being a nice fool and responding to your idiocracy.
"Generally, if something cannot happen, then it is not a good cover story."
Well the Jesus story seemed to create a whole religion... pretty good cover story as the son of god for Marry the Prostitute!!
Some people, as you like to call them 'conspiracy theorists', do not think it is a good cover story, and have come up with some reasons why it is. Please can you respond to their reasoning if you want to reply, without your sarcastic remarks! I know your a mod n all and have the power, but can you please stop with the sarcasm and add to the discussion!
If you are having trouble putting an argument forth, (which it looks like you are) I would recommend this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rItm9j4vg_Q (it has nothing to say about 9/11)
Can you please watch it before responding!!!
@Mad Mat:
"Why would a plane not take down the trade center? "
Well as can be seen in 9/11 the planes did not take down the centers, it was the office fires that were smoldering for 1hr+ that melted the steel... as the 'government story'
"More importantly, why would it be important to take down the trade center (and not just fly a plane full of people into it)? "
The building required more upkeep that what it was worth.
To demolish the insider trading records.
for an insurance claim.
"why the hell would they try to fake it?"
To go to WAR!!!! To get oil and drugs
Halliburton, Dick Chaney's company has had over %700 increase since 9/11
Bush and Chaney are now considered terrorists by Venezuela
-I wonder if that government does not believe the 'official' 9/11 story.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
What held the floors of the building up? Its steel structural supports. What happens when steel is subjected to high heat? It both loses its strength, and it warps. What happens when structural supports of steel lose their strength and begin to expand unevenly in multiple floors of a building? They're not going to be able to hold up a structure.
Think about it, imagine you're lifting a heavy barbell over your head. Now imagine your arms lose a large percentage of their strength and begin to expand at uneven rates. Are you going to be able to hold that weight as efficiently? No, you would not. You would drop the weight.
But why did the building not collapse to one side instead of imploding? The steel supports lost their strength and warped, causing some to buckle, which resulted in the weight that was applied to the remaining supports, which were quickly overwhelmed in turn. The World Trade Center was built to survive a plane crash, but it wasn't built to withstand a massive jet fuel fire resulting in the structural integrity of the floors giving way and multiple floors colliding down on top of it.
There's also the fact that buildings aren't completely solid. A big obelisk the size of a Tower might have collapsed sideways, but skyscraper is largely comprised of air. That's why it will implode onto itself.
Third, the building had no lateral acceleration. Remember, a body at rest wants to stay at rest. That's inertia. The impact of a plane would not alter the center of gravity of a building that massive, and the structural supports buckled too quickly and the building collapsed too fast for any significant acceleration to occur except for straight down.
Oh, I see what you mean. Well, that's what happened.
If you're asking why the Towers fell at the speed of free-fall, the answer is they didn't. The speed of the Towers collapsing was fast, but not free-fall.
Yes, it did collapse on itself. This has been explained.
Meanwhile, let's look at the controlled demolition theory. Have you seen a controlled demolition? What's the key word here? Right, "demolition." There are bombs involved. So, where were the bombs on 9/11, since you're so convinced they were there? Watch a controlled demolition. You can see and hear bombs going off in a building prior to collapse. They're not subtle. Where were these bombs on 9/11 you are so convinced are there for no reason?
First, it wasn't the plane impact, it was the resulting fire and the ramifications of that to the structural integrity of the supports.
Second, a good cover story for what, exactly? According to your narrative, the government arranged the plane crashes. So the government had a cover story of planes crashing into buildings to cover up the planes crashing into buildings?
Oh, I guess there were bombs as well. So, why not just have the terrorists plant bombs and forego the planes?
"No. The temperature was unevenly distributed, which played a factor in the building's collapse."
If one side of the buildings columns were 'melting/warping' then that would have cause the building to tip over not collapse in on its self.
"unevenly in multiple floors of a building?"
Fall to the side not collapse in on its self.
"Think about it, imagine you're lifting a heavy barbell over your head. Now imagine your arms"
Imagine one of your arms was hit, the barbell would fall to the side, not on top of you!
"The World Trade Center was built to survive a plane crash"
Agreed!!!
"massive jet fuel fire"
3 second jetfuel fireball is not a massive jet fuel fire that last for 1h, that could melt/weaken 2inch thick steel, If the jetfuell fire lasted for an hour I would be inclined to think your way... maybe...
"but skyscraper is largely comprised of air."
Steel coulombs in this case! there is air inside.
"Third, the building had no lateral acceleration."
Correct, but the uneven melting of steel
"That's what happened."
There was no delay, from the floors hitting other floors, It came down at the same speed of a controlled demolition.
" they were falling so fast vertically that they hit the ground before they could gain any major acceleration horizontally."
And these office fires that heated the beams unevenly cause the 'falling so fast vertically' That each floor collapsed at the same time?
"Of course it collapsed in on itself. This has been explained."
The explanation does not fit nature
" Have you seen a controlled demolition? What's the key word here? Right, "demolition." There are bombs involved."
Not in real life, but videos. Controlled! Yes there were bombs, or charges. Many firemen and others have testified that they heard explosions.
As can be seen in one of the image I uploaded, there is molten metal spraying out from a charge going off from the plane hit, what is your explanation? In this other images taken from 9/11 It can be seen that some of the coulombs have been cut on an angle just the same as a controlled demolition would use. Days/weeks later it can been seen there is still molten metal at the base of the building, how did this get here if it was not from demolition charges? Do you think the fires melted the steel to molten metal?
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
So we should believe the official story in the absence of hard evidence to the contrary? Okay. Why don't you do that?
Aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself, here? Your conspiracy hypothesis is not fact.
Okay. Cards on the table. I'm using exactly the same form of reasoning you are. I'm simply turning it on the conspiracy hypothesis rather than the terrorist hypothesis. You question the "official story"; I question your story. Have you not noticed all the parallels I've been drawing? I didn't think I was being subtle. This is my argument: that reasoning as you and other conspiracy theorists do, uncritically accepting and repeating any statement that supports your desired position (like "The Pentagon was hit by something which was not a passenger airliner") while being arbitrarily skeptical of any statement that contradicts it (like "Tall buildings really do collapse straight down when their supports are weakened"), is inconsistent, frustrating, and completely unproductive. When regular people try to engage you in a real conversation about this issue, they rapidly grow aggravated with you. You know this. You're clearly very sensitive to getting shut down with verbal abuse, given your repeated complaints about "ad hominems" -- it doesn't take a psychic to guess that you've been subjected to that treatment more than a few times. And now, you're trying to shut me down with verbal abuse. That is not a coincidence. That is the tables being turned. Your aggravation with me is our aggravation with you. That feeling you have, like you're trying to fight a swamp, progress is impossible and everything stinks, that's how we feel.
I think I'm good, but thanks for your concern.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
sorry but I am only going to respond to Highroller, Mad Mat, and others, your points are irreverent to 9/11 as you are pretty much still attacking me and not the argument. so please, stop.
"And yes, not trusting evidence does mean you can't use it in an argument if others are using it."
Where did i say that i don't trust this evidence of the timeline? But if others are using it for their argument, then of course i can use it in mine, i can agree or disagree and put forth another argument.
Better to be safe, please check it out. You might learn something new too.
PS Blinking Spirit: Just out of curiosity, what nationality and/or religion are you?
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Do I need to rephrase this more simply?
Your argument is bad because you say things without evidence and because you ignore evidence of other things.
Unless I'm very much mistaken, that's an attack on your argument. Complaining that I'm attacking you instead of your argument does not make it so. It just makes it so that you're attacking me instead of my argument.
You rather undermine your own point here when you continue to address me and even ask me questions. If you want to put your foot down like this, you actually have to follow through with it.
San Lorenzan Bokononist.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This is factually incorrect, steel doesn't have a fixed melting point- it's an alloy, so it varies. Even if you where going off average, it's more like 1370c not 1510.
Blinking Spirit was a fictional character all along!
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
As an example, the ignition temperature of wood varies, but most woods will have an ignition temperature under 500 degrees Fahrenheit. I start my wood-fired oven by igniting kindling with a normal kitchen lighter. The kindling heats up the logs, which eventually ignite. By the time I'm actually cooking my pizza, the oven is sitting at 700-900 degrees Fahrenheit, depending on the location within the oven. This I can confirm with my IR thermometer.
Clearly, the wood is not burning at 900 degrees, and yet parts of the oven reach that temperature. By your logic, Typho0nn, this is not possible. And yet, it happens every single week.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
"it's more like 1370c not 1510."
Still the fires were not hot enough to cause the molten metal to be splattering out the picture.
"Blinking Spirit was a fictional character all along! "
-explains a lot.
@Lithl
"Clearly, the wood is not burning at 900 degrees, and yet parts of the oven reach that temperature. By your logic, Typho0nn, this is not possible. And yet, it happens every single week."
-The fire is burning at 900deg not the wood. That was not my logic, that is your logic and asserted it as mine. Please do not put 'words in my mouth'!
@Mad Mat
"had in abundant supply."
Same with other buildings that have had fires, but they did not collapse.
As on NYE in Dubai, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/31/dubai-skyscraper-fire-ablaze-new-years-eve-fireworks
Should that have collapsed like the twin towers? 4 hours later....
"It will lose virtually all of its strength by 1000°C"
The fires were not burning evenly around the building at 1000c to cause an internal buckle/collapse, if one side was burning at 1000c for 1h+ then the building would have bent to one side. Steel will not all of a sudden give way all at once, it will bend first.
"None of this has anything to do with my question. Namely, there is no reason to crash the planes if the conspiracy has access to explosives anyway."
For a cover story
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
However, you don't seem to have read my post. The fire is not burning at 900 degrees in my oven. The fire is much cooler than that, but because the oven bricks are constantly receiving heat and they cannot radiate heat at the same rate, the oven's temperature rises above the temperature of the fire. I have demonstrated on a small scale that it is possible for something to be heated to a temperature higher than that which is providing the heat. In order to continue asserting that a fire started by burning jet fuel cannot melt steel, you now have to show that the temperature difference is too large to be a possibility.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
"Sure, a fireworks explosion is very comparable to a collission with an airplane"
I'm comparing the ~1hr office fires that cant been seen that took down the trade centers, to the ~4 hour fire that left the structure intact that was blazing, can been seen from miles away and that left the structure intact that was.
"If one critical part fails" .. " the others will instantly"
There is more than one critical part in the trade centers. Buildings are not designed with one critical part.
"What's wrong with "terrorists plant bombs, make building explode"?"
Depends what 'terrorists' you are talking about, Venezuela has declared Bush and Chaney Terrorists. The middle Easter 'terrorists' did not have the resources in America to set up explosives 3 weeks prior. The Israel Secret Service would have the resources.
"No, he's attacking the argument. You just don't like that he's winning."
lets decide the winner later...
@Lithl
"What words did I put in your mouth?"
This V
"Clearly, the wood is not burning at 900 degrees, and yet parts of the oven reach that temperature. By your logic, Typho0nn, this is not possible."
"The fire is not burning at 900 degrees in my oven."
The fire would be, the bricks spread the heat and cool it down so the oven does not reach 1000.
This is a good point and can be used on the coulombs in the trade center as they are made of metal and good conductors of heat. The heat should have been dispersed up and down the 2inch thick coulombs not allowing them to even reach the temperature of a small office fire say 1000deg F
As a cool experiment we should get one of the twin tower 2inch thick coulombs, then pile all the office equipment around it and see it we can weaken it by 'office fire'.
Ahhhhh fk I'll try Blinking Spirit one more time, since he/she seems to be trying a bit more...
@Blinking Spirit
"Your argument is bad because you say things without evidence and because you ignore evidence of other things."
Instead of saying this you should point out where I say things without evidence, and then give evidence of the things I missed.
"uncritically accepting and repeating"
The government has lied to the people on a number of occasions, like the CIA running drugs, cought by Micheal C Ruppert. We are being quite the opposite and being super critical of the governments stories. So you saying 'uncritically' is an ad hominem attack as it does not address the argument and is your opinion on how we are interpreting things.
Here are some Engineers and Architects that are being 'uncritical' http://www.ae911truth.org/
""The Pentagon was hit by something which was not a passenger airliner""
I am looking for video evidence to prove this, do you have any? I am open to my mind being change, as can be seen by the edit in the first post!
"Tall buildings really do collapse straight down when their supports are weakened"
Please explain how this happened in relation to 9/11, there have been many fires in multistory buildings that have not made it collapse, the twin towers are a special case.
"Complaining that I'm attacking you instead of your argument does not make it so. It just makes it so that you're attacking me instead of my argument."
In previous posts It can be seen you attack me and not the argument, its recorded:
"And here you just swallow the official narrative?"
"Gravity is just a theory!"
"Pssh. That's just what they want you to think."
"Well, I believe it was a flying elephant"
"This is getting boring"
"San Lorenzan Bokononist."
"You don't want to know what I really think, but it rhymes with schmantisemite."
to name some. If you want me to further explain how these are not attacking the argument and attacking the person, please ask!
I will refer you to the Debate Rules that you have set out: please re read them!
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/debate/450456-debate-rules-updated-10-17-2012
And please check out this video... !!!!!!! It will help you respond reasonably. And please do it without the sarcastic stuff!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rItm9j4vg_Q
Here is a better put together argument about 9/11 by Micheal C. Ruppert who caught the CIA bringing drugs into America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy9JCDchk34
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Buildings are built to withstand fires, sure. But the Twin Towers were not capable, as it turns out, of withstanding a jet's worth of jet fuel burning over multiple floors. That much fuel burning that hot warped the structural supports.
And let's clarify what that means, because:
Warping is not the same thing as melting. The steel bars warped due to the heat, meaning they expanded, as things do when heated.
Anyway, here's a good link. Maybe read it:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
"of withstanding a jet's worth of jet fuel burning over multiple floors."
the jet fuel only lasted for ~3 seconds, not enough to warp steel 2 inches of steel.
There are images of molten steel spray out from the towers that I have posted. How did this melt then?
'Conspiracy' explanation, a charge went off when it was hit by the plane.
Sounds pretty simple and logical to me.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
"We're going to blow up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, so that we can acquire oil!"
"Oh, how are we going to blow them up?"
"We'll drive trucks full of explosive charges in at night!"
"And then say that it was terrorists driving the trucks?"
"No, that's too simple, what we'll do is also fly planes into the towers."
"But won't people realize that jet fuel can't melt steel beams?"
"They might, but we'll systematically bribe or coerce a vast number of engineering experts to say otherwise."
"What about the Pentagon? A plane there, too?"
"No, at the Pentagon we'll use a cruise missile, but tell people it was a plane!"
"But won't people figure it out when there's no plane debris?"
"...You're really overthinking this"
"Okay, but who will we go to war with for oil? Saudi Arabia? Venezuela? Iran?"
"No, Afghanistan!"
"But they're ranked near the bottom in oil reserves, between Guatemala and Suriname. I guess we'll have Afghanis flying the planes?"
"No, we'll tell people it was a bunch of Saudis, but then attack Afghanistan anyway!"
This all makes perfect sense.
So another sarcastic spam argument.
No the convo didn't go down like that. Nobody is claiming how the convo went down.
If that makes perfect sense to you, please leave the thread!
I would GUESS it would be more like this:
"How are we going to get a Rothchild central bank into these middle eastern countries and have then under the NWO/Illumanati/Elite business owners control."
"then we can also take control of the OPIUM and oil fields, and profit of that too!"
"We will create an event that allows us to go to war to destabilize these countries."
"the world trade centers have too much upkeep, and we can hide insider trading if they were to be destroyed"
"Well we can't be seen to destroy them, and we need a reason to go to the middle east. Why don't we use Al Qaeda that the CIA trained to hijack planes and fly them into it"
"Well the buildings are made to withstand a plane hit, so we better have explosives in them to take them down, and we can use the planes as a cover story"
"we also need to get rid of WTC7 so load that up with explosives too, then we can blame it on office fires from the tower collapse"
"we will also announce that 2.3 Trillion has gone missing from the Pentagon a day before, and hit that to cover it up"
*I am still wondering if it was a plane or missile that hit the pentagon, I am open to change!! And if a plane did hit it, how would this change the narrative. Of course if it was a missile then it would all be lies. So I want to see a video of a plane hitting it, like we have a video of the twin towers and WTC7. With so many cameras watching to the pentagon and from the pentagon, there should be better evidence of this. It is possible to plant evidence of a plane in the pentagon in a wing that was under construction, or take evidence of a missile away. The possibility is there.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Every line seems to match your proposed explanation.