It's not a conspiracy


Recommended Posts

iamawesomewicked    80

for your information I'm female. Planes don't collapse buildings. End of discussion. Do the rest of the research.

So you've run a 747 into a building before?

Link to post
Share on other sites
PreKe    147
110 story sky scrappers made of metal collapse in no time... not to mention they were quake proof.

They do collapse. We saw it on 9/11.

Its not about waking up. Its about doing research and not blindly following the government. I mean seriously, if someone watches the videos of the buildings falling and thinks a plane did that... there is a serious problem... >.<

That's funny, because if there's someone that don't do research it's 9/11 Truthers. Not only do they not do research, but they also dishonestly misrepresent the facts to more easily spread their propaganda.

for your information I'm female. Planes don't collapse buildings. End of discussion. Do the rest of the research.

Planes do cause buildings to collapse.

The fact that planes can't collapse buildings should be enough to turn heads.

But they can.

Or that you can't make cellphone calls from as high in the air as those planes were.

Oh dear. Not that old Truther canard. You really should look up the actual facts instead of blindly accepting bogus claims from other truthers.

Or that there was no debre from a plane in pennsylvania.

There was. You are misinformed again. Why do you insist on making demonstrably false claims?

Forget what the truthers say. Its about facts.

Truthers don't care about facts, as you have shown.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Howling Wind    6

Prove me wrong. Planes CANNOT collapse buildings. Show me a sky scrapper that can fall from a plane crash. For your info.. I know nothing about the "truth movement."

All I did was listen to the phone calls, see pictures of the Pennsylvania crash.. and watch the buildings fall.

And bingo.. fortunately I'm not stupid. So show me some proof or just drop it. Mmmkay?

Also, there was a big hole in pennsylvania with a bunch of metal and trash dumped in it. No bodies, no blackbox no parts of a plane. Sooooo you were saying?

Be a sheep if you must... I don't follow truthers and I don't follow the government. I follow common sense.

My dad said the minute he heard the 911 calls he thought.. how are people calling from airplanes?

Yeah.. nothing to do with truthers as I said... just common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim K    16,002

Everything that PreKe posted. (Y)

...and to add. Our politicians can not even keep their penises in their pants without everyone knowing. You really except the government could pull off such an operation without anyone talking???

Prove me wrong. Planes CANNOT collapse buildings. Show me a sky scrapper that can fall from a plane crash. For your info.. I know nothing about the "truth movement."

All I did was listen to the phone calls, see pictures of the Pennsylvania crash.. and watch the buildings fall.

And bingo.. fortunately I'm not stupid. So show me some proof or just drop it. Mmmkay?

Watch WTC 1 and 2 collapse and tell me that they did not fail in the area of where the planes impacted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PreKe    147
Prove me wrong. Planes CANNOT collapse buildings. Show me a sky scrapper that can fall from a plane crash. For your info.. I know nothing about the "truth movement."

Why can't planes cause buildings to collapse exactly? Magic?

All I did was listen to the phone calls, see pictures of the Pennsylvania crash.. and watch the buildings fall.

So did you bother to educate yourself about the phone calls?

Did you bother to actually educate yourself about the Pennsylvania crash? There was indeed debris.

And bingo.. fortunately I'm not stupid. So show me some proof or just drop it. Mmmkay?

Proof of what? You are the one who claims that it's impossible for a plane to cause a building to collapse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Raraku    0
Because by saying this you are showing that you will reject all facts that don't match your predetermined position. It's like tobacco deniers, creationists, flat earthers, and AGW deniers.

I'm no conspiracy theorist--I'm not even American--but it's worth pointing out that it appears that your positions are as equally predetermined and conceived as the people you criticize. There is really no difference between you and him in that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stetson    180

The moon does not exist. Prove me wrong.

THAT kind of reasoning is the reason that people get lumped into the "conspiracy theorist" category.

It seems to me that the people who are least open to alternative explanations are often the conspiracy theorists themselves, who have seized onto their Truth. Because so many people dismiss it, that just self-reinforces their belief in the conspiracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PreKe    147
I'm no conspiracy theorist--I'm not even American--but it's worth pointing out that it appears that your positions are as equally predetermined and conceived as the people you criticize. There is really no difference between you and him in that way.

Yes, there is a huge difference because I am not the one rejecting the facts. My opinions are also not predetermined. For example, I used to be an AGW skeptic. Then I educated myself about the facts, and now I realize what an ignorant moron I used to be. I changed my mind because the facts showed me that I had to. That is the opposite of rejecting the facts because they don't match a predetermined position, like Truthers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Howling Wind    6

The debris wasn't plane debris. Yes I did research. The buildings fell like demolition. Not saying it was. But it sure looked that way. It wasn't the fire from the planes. They fell too soon and the one that got hit second fell first. Thats all I'm saying on the topic. I have no need to start a flame war to defend my common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
iamawesomewicked    80

The debris wasn't plane debris. Yes I did research. The buildings fell like demolition. Not saying it was. But it sure looked that way. It wasn't the fire from the planes. They fell too soon and the one that got hit second fell first. Thats all I'm saying on the topic. I have no need to start a flame war to defend my common sense.

So who are you to tell physics that it's wrong? It doesn't matter which building got hit first or second..

I too, used to believe that 9/11 was an inside job.. I watched all the propaganda videos like "Loose Change" and watched Alex Jones go on and on with his crazy rants... until I realized how stupid it is to think that the government could ever plan something so elaborate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stetson    180

P200061_1.jpg

P200062_1.jpg

P200065_1.jpg

P200066_1.jpg

Make whatever claims you want about how the government actually destroyed a plane and tossed debris around, or planted parts themselves, or even shot it down with a missle, but that looks like plane debris to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe User    518

Prove me wrong. Planes CANNOT collapse buildings. Show me a sky scrapper that can fall from a plane crash. For your info.. I know nothing about the "truth movement."

I'm curious, where did you study architecture or engineering?

The reason is, I had this discussion with a few Cooper Union engineers and they disagree with you.

Granted, they only have masters in the field from one of the world's best schools of engineering and design, so I'm betting you know something they don't.

Please, explain why burning jet fuel on a seriously compromised infrastructure wouldn't cause weakening and floor joint collapse leading to collapse of the internal structure resulting in collapse of the superstructure.

I'm assuming you're going to get very detailed, so I'll ask a few of the engineers to go over your findings so we can report it to the media.

Thanks in advance.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Howling Wind    6

Am I the only one that noticed the plane impact leaned? Why the freaking hell would a building stand for a few hours at longest and fall straight down without any major sign of failing? Seriously people...

No I won't go into details. But for one, it wouldn't collapse as fast as it did. and if it would have collapsed from fires it would have showed slow signs of it.

I got to see a building demolition when my dad and some guys blew one up. It fell just like the WTC 1 & 2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim K    16,002

The debris wasn't plane debris. Yes I did research. The buildings fell like demolition. Not saying it was. But it sure looked that way. It wasn't the fire from the planes. They fell too soon and the one that got hit second fell first. Thats all I'm saying on the topic. I have no need to start a flame war to defend my common sense.

well, "common sense" would tell that WTC 2 had a lot more weight being applied to the "wound"...ergo it stands to reason why it failed first.

but yea...just common sense. :whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites
s1k3sT    31

The moon does not exist. Prove me wrong.

THAT kind of reasoning is the reason that people get lumped into the "conspiracy theorist" category.

It seems to me that the people who are least open to alternative explanations are often the conspiracy theorists themselves, who have seized onto their Truth. Because so many people dismiss it, that just self-reinforces their belief in the conspiracy.

IMO saying the moon doesn't exist is equally as stupid as believing those towers were brought down by the planes. You are the conspiracy theorist and you don't even know it...

I too, used to believe that 9/11 was an inside job.. I watched all the propaganda videos like "Loose Change" and watched Alex Jones go on and on with his crazy rants... until I realized how stupid it is to think that the government could ever plan something so elaborate.

The Manhattan project was a far larger plan and was keep so secretive that the president didn't know about it until they became president.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PreKe    147
The debris wasn't plane debris. Yes I did research. The buildings fell like demolition. Not saying it was. But it sure looked that way. It wasn't the fire from the planes. They fell too soon and the one that got hit second fell first. Thats all I'm saying on the topic. I have no need to start a flame war to defend my common sense.

Yes, the debris was plane debris. The plane hit the ground at high speed, though, so a lot of the debris was scattered around a huge area. You clearly did not do any research. And no, the buildings did not fall like they were demolished. First of all, they fell from the top and down, whereas controlled demolitions are from the bottom up. Secondly, controlled demolitions are always accompanied by hundreds of rhythmical explosions. There was none of that on 9/11.

Who are you to say that they fell too soon?

And please explain exactly why a plane cannot cause a building to collapse.

Leaving the discussion, are you? Yes, creationists, truthers, etc. do that a lot when they have painted themselves into a corner. But they always return when they think everyone forgot how they embarrassed themselves.

Am I the only one that noticed the plane impact leaned? Why the freaking hell would a building stand for a few hours at longest and fall straight down without any major sign of failing? Seriously people...

What do you mean "plane impact leaned"? Why would it not stand for a few hours, until the structure was too weak to hold the top part anymore, leading to the top part crashing down on the floors below?

No I won't go into details. But for one, it wouldn't collapse as fast as it did. and if it would have collapsed from fires it would have showed slow signs of it.

Who are you to say how fast it would collapse? Why would it have "showed slow signs"?

I got to see a building demolition when my dad and some guys blew one up. It fell just like the WTC 1 & 2.

You mean, apart from that building being demolished from the ground up, where as WTC1&2 fell from the impact site and down? And apart from the fact that there were no rhythmical explosions (controlled demolition always happens with hundreds or thousands of carefully placed charges that are set up in a specific pattern)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Howling Wind    6

WTC 2 collapsing first doesn't explain why a building like The twin towers would collapse from a plane in the first place and jet fuel fires.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stetson    180

IMO saying the moon doesn't exist is equally as stupid as believing those towers were brought down by the planes. You are the conspiracy theorist and you don't even know it...

My point was not the stupidity of the belief, but rather putting the burden of proof on the wrong side. If you make a claim that goes against what is accepted you need to support it.

Einstein did not publish two sentences describing his ideas followed by "Prove me wrong."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Howling Wind    6

I'm leaving because I've got better things to do with my very young life then to have people ask me why they fell too soon or why they collapsed at all. I've already done my research. You do yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PreKe    147

Sigh.

Howling Wind, please explain exactly why a plane could not cause a building to collapse.

I'm leaving because I've got better things to do with my very young life then to have people ask me why they fell too soon or why they collapsed at all. I've already done my research. You do yours.

Yes, the typical truther/creationist/AGW denier tactic of pulling out when their own contradictions are starting to catch up with them and they have painted themselves into a corner.

Rest assured you will return in the near future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
spenser.d    1,100

I'm sure there's a thread for this bull**** already. Dunno why you feel the need to make another one except to annoy everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Howling Wind    6

Also, I'm educated enough. I have done a ton of research for school reports on this. It just depresses me to keep having to dig all that stuff up again. I'm tired of doing research to prove myself "correct"

If you care so much why I think what I think why don't you go look it up? All I did was make a comment. If you don't believe what I believe that's your problem not mine.

As for educating myself. Do research and come back and tell me I'm wrong. ANd please don't bring up the "pancake theory"

If you look at the blueprints for the twin towers there is no way the planes could have made them fall that quickly, if at all. The fire only effected a few floors, it's not going to send a building from the 70s to the ground in a few hours.

If you guys really want, I can dig up all the research. if you REALLY REALLY want.

See I'm half scared to, the last time I did bring up proof (I spent months doing so) they just said "You're wrong" or you're 13 you don't know what you're talking about.

I wasted two months of my life... so... how will I know that won't happen again?

I do have school work to do you know...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe User    518

Or that you can't make cellphone calls from as high in the air as those planes were.

Hi, me again. Sorry to bother you, I'm guessing you're working out the math for the other response, but I had a quick question.

Where did you study telecommunications?

Because I work in the field and yes, it's possible to get a cellular connection while at cruising altitude. The biggest problem is that the phone tends to hit many towers at the same time over a huge area, it does make billing more complicated.

So, unless you have some theory about how cell radio signals stop working at a set altitude of 30,000 feet, yet all other radio still seems to work, I'm going to guess you really shouldn't be talking about the subject.

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Marius F    4

isn't 911 the emergency number in us? it's a kinda freaky 9/11.

my opinion: it was a inside job!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.