Printable View
The groups that personally took credit for it, as well as the captured plotters who not only admitted to, but bragged about and carefully explained the years of elaborate planning?Quote:
Originally Posted by beautifulrock
The vast majority of scientists and experts who have weighed in on plausability?
My own intuition and ability to think critically as an intelligent, educated, well-adjusted individual
And the lack of credible theories to suggest anything at all to the contrary
The first pic looks like sparks.Quote:
Originally Posted by beautifulrock
The last two pics look like red hot metal, not molten metal. It could be aluminum which needs less heat to make it red hot than steel does.
Unrealistic time tableQuote:
Originally Posted by Visionz
Wow, so the 9/11 conspiracy theory is based on pure physics? That the planes that crashed into the towers aren't what caused the towers to fall? I dunno that much about physics other then that of a molecular level, but common sense says that the planes brought the towers down.
I asked a specific question related to physics and you're providing answers when you admittedly don't know that much about it in the first place. That's an odd course of action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Quan Youngest Wu
And lets talk common sense. In the question I asked that was completely rhetorical in the first place, your response is unrealistic time table. :? The reality is that time table could be infinite. Ignited butane would never reach the tempurture necessary to melt steel. Period. Common sense, you're quick to quote it but decidedly slow to display it.
Watch that last video I posted. Watch all the firemen talking about secondary devices exploding inside the building. Watch the eye witness accounts of explosions in the basement complete with skin hanging off their bodies and tell me how common sense dictates that a plane hits the 89th story of a building which causes explosions in the basement before the building ever collapsed.
I would accuse you of being equally 'small' minded, but i'm afraid using the term 'small' in relation to you is far too incongruous for my sensibilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by beautifulrock
However, i did not say i would not watch it, i said i could not watch it.
I am open to the possibility of anything happening anywhere at any time.
However, i'm not going to be persuaded to believe a theory (it's not a theory, but i'll use the phrase in the interest of expediency) which has no conclusive nor substantial evidence behind it.
It being an 'inside job' would have effect no on my 'beliefs', it's is a little... you know... narrow minded? of you to think so (i'm trying hard not to say 'small').
You ask where people get their proof to support their 'belief' that the attack was not an inside job, but this has been provided clearly.
A terrorist organisation took responsibility for the attack, planes crashed into buildings, buildings collapse.
Now regardless of what you 'believe' happened, people have good reason to accept this as a representation of what really happened.
My personal view, although irrelevant, is that the buildings collapsed as a direct result of the planes hitting them.
However, i do not rule out that the US government was both incompetent and possibly negligent in assessing the situation before and after the attacks occurred.
I am open to the possibility of a US department having some warning of some kind of attack.
Yet, i cannot profess to 'know' any of this, although i think clearly the government was incompetent in it's reaction.
There is no evidence to support assertions of an 'inside job'.
Whatever evidence you produce relating to the manner in which these buildings collapsed, there is still a leap of unreasonable faith to connect these occurrences with a greater conspiracy.
The idea of an inside job is a complete fabrication in the very essence of the phrase, there is absolutely nothing tying what you believe might have happened, with a greater conspiracy.
That is unequivocal.
You raise a pertinent point Dan.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalAsiaticBlackDan
I've talked about this before with people i know, conspiracies theories generally mask an hidden agenda.
Whatever it may be, generally these theories are a manifestation of some broader discontent or maladjustment.
A distrust of authority, particularly governmental authority (which i don't think is wrong by any means), limits a persons ability to assess events in a non partisan manner.
Any event of significant scale will be viewed through this cynical (and not skeptical, as some of you claim) lens.
Conspiracy theory advocates are extremely quick to adopt the position that everyone else in society is either misinformed (if they are diplomatic about it) or idiotic (if they post on Wu Tang Corp Dot Com).
This attitude is a further manifestation of their own broader attitudes towards society and they're likely feelings of being hard down by or under appreciated.
Many conspiracy theories are extremely persuasive, because they present information as if it were fact, when it is merely assumption or complete fallacious, and build on these falsehoods eventually culminating in a seemingly plausible all encompassing explanation.
I can understand how people without in depth knowledge of a particular area (such as finance, which relates to those preposterous Zeitgeist 'films') will be easily persuaded by what they are being told.
The problem occurs when people with knowledge of that field assess these claims, and invariably rubbish them. Any person with knowledge of world finance would watch Zeitgeist and be staggered by the ludicrous and unsupported claims.
But of course, these people are just a part of the system that is trying to cover up some huge conspiracy which in turn relates to some omnipotent minority of people who are involved in a cult who's aiming to take over the world and it all revolves around the United States for some reason and you can't trust anyone who actually knows anything about these subjects, because they're just puppets.
Right...
The 9/11 debate will surpass evolution v religion in the Western world.
:chef:
Yet the two will still battle for the title of most ridiculous discussion ever.
Wow you seem pretty sure of yourself for somebody with no fucking clue at all. I don't need a long winded double spaced argument that reeks of OCD. I'll just say this. There is plenty of evidence to support an inside job, and the biggest one is motive. You don't understand what is happening right now because you are extremely short sighted and you live in a convenient bubble. You are an infant. If this wasn't just terrorists crashing planes into a building, you wouldn't know what to do. The world as you know it would be over, and that scares you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Bateman
Go to the store and get me a 40oz, and get yourself a pacifier, you my son nigga.
You aren't a psychologist, stop pretending to be smarter than you are, it's pathetic. You went 5 paragraphs without using the word transference once, even though that's what you were talking about. Get a dictionary you fucking simpleton. This isn't Reading rainbow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Bateman
Where is your evidence of anything Sean Pat Micheal Bateman? All you bring to the table is stuff you think you think you know and provide ridicule as your only defense. Another tool of the illuminati. I would go so far as to accuse you of being one of them if you weren't such an imbecile, but you are.
For instance, you said " My personal view, although irrelevant, is that the buildings collapsed as a direct result of the planes hitting them." - which is an over simplified way of describing what the "official" explanation is, and wrong. If it were caused by the planes simply hitting the building, they would have collapsed immediately. The official explanation, if you had done any research at all, is that the planes impacted core columns in combination with jetfuel that burned hot enough to weaken the trusses which buckled and failed because all the fireproofing had blown off in the explosion. But here's the problem. The planes impacted in two different ways. In the South tower core columns were barely hit at all because the plane came in at an angle. Two different kinds of plane strikes and the buildings both collapsed, even though they were meant to withstand the force of being hit by a 737. A little history lesson, the Empire State building was constructed in 1931 and was hit by a B-25 Mitchell Bomber during a fog storm. It's still there. Most scientists who aren't receiving a check from the 9-11 commission would say that jetfuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt or even bend steel, and that most of the fuel would have burned off in the immediate explosion or in the next ten minutes. Still we are force fed this canned explanation which has no scientific merit what-so-ever. We've got experts coming on TV 30 minutes after the attack already pinning it on Bin Laden, an ex-CIA agent, and thirty minutes after the collapse, there is already a comprehensive explanation as to why the buildings fell, although nobody had examined anything yet. YOUR OFFICIAL EXPLANATION WAS ALREADY PROVIDED TO YOU BEFORE A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE WAS EXAMINED AT GROUND ZERO. The rest was easy, sell the story to the American public, sell them the idea that they need their rights curbed in order to fight an invisible enemy that lives everywhere, and will never be stopped. Then you can start two wars, sign the patriot act, then rip up the constitution and piss on it. You suspend Habeas Corpus. Next you cause another major catastrophe on American soil, enact Martial law and go after all those pesky Christians. RFID chips implanted in every citizen, universal money and religion, and pretty soon you have your Orwellian state, which is exactly what the New World Order is.
I believe you are anrgy.
In fact, i 'know' you are angry.
Good one. Yes I'm mad because you rejected me from the cool people's group. It has devastated my very existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Bateman
Motive doesn't qualify as empirical evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by beautifulrock
Try once again please.
Is it just me, or are you furious?
Has society done something to you?
Is this why you are so... small?
Why the does the incompetence of the US government scare you so much?
So much that you won't even acknowledge it.
Your obsessed with giving huge amounts credit to the people who you supposedly despise.
I don't think i ever ridiculed you directly, yet you have done so numerous times.Quote:
Originally Posted by beautifulrock
And don't try that whole "trying to be smart" thing with me again, as i said last time you pulled that trump card out, i am not very smart, but i am much more intelligent than you.
Once again, there is a lot of real evidence piling up to suggest that you are quite angry right now.
You misinterpreted what i said, which is a shame i guess, because it caused you to write a gigantic paragraph which nobody else is going to read.
The buildings collapsed as a direct result of planes crashing into them and the consequent issues this created.
You kindly went on to explain this to me again, odd, but nonetheless, thank you very much.
I've already covered the your little problem with what you called "jetfuel", scroll up a little, and try to calm down a touch while you're reading it.
You have provided me with a lot of information which i provided you with, and a lot of other words which amount to meaningless drivel as a whole.
You dodged the main point which was that there is no evidence of a broader conspiracy in any way connected to the US government.
To this you answered "Motive"....
As evidence.
As you are so well informed and intelligent, let's see if you can comprehend the various ways that saying "Motive" does not equal evidence.
(by the way, the last 3 or 4 sentences were the most touching. You're paranoia is very admirable, in the light of absolutely no evidence. I respect your fool hardy yet steadfast attitude)
Have a lie down, and get back to me on that one.
Your thankfully,
Sean Bateman.