Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(May 2, 2012 at 8:55 pm)Phil Wrote: I know this guy was brought up earlier in the thread but I really couldn't be bothered to respond to his inanity. I am speaking of Steven Jones the former BYU professor. How anybody can give his magic thermate theory any credence is beyond me. Firstly, Steven Jones still thinks that Pons and Fleischmann of cold fusion infamy were right and that their findings were "silenced" and he is still active in cold fusion research. Second and even more damning should be seen by who his employer is (I mean was). Steven Jones is a Mormon. Nothing is wrong with that as there are myriads of religious people in the world. Where the problem lies is that he has written a paper that there is scientific and archeological evidence that Jesus walked the Americas. Both of the reasons above show that Steven Jones has zero critical thinking skills and his science skills are severely lacking. How anyone gives him credence on 9/11 is beyond foolishness.
Glad I didn't have to add this myself. I will add that the architects and engineers who grouped together for '9/11 truth' (I can't remember their group name nor am I inclined to look it up) - out of all those guys, if I recall correctly, there's not anyone involved in that movement who's actually qualified to build / assess buildings higher then a few stories.
(May 2, 2012 at 9:02 pm)Bgood Wrote: This should be viewed for the sheer entertainment of seeing Jesse Ventura
Do you agree with what Jesse says (along with others in the '911 truther' movement) about the buildings falling at 'free fall' speed?
(May 2, 2012 at 9:02 pm)Bgood Wrote: If fires alone brought down the towers, then why did they collapse at differenting rates of burning? Simple Laws of physics would say that the buildings would collapse after X amount of time. The North Tower, which got struck by a plane first by nearly 15 minutes, fell down about 30 minutes after the South Tower collapsed. it would only seem logical that the North tower which burned nearly 45 minutes longer would have collapsed sooner than the other.
The laws of physics will only produce the same result under the same conditions. Two different planes hit them in different places, different heights, at different times of day and possibly at different levels of fuel capacity.
May 3, 2012 at 12:24 am (This post was last modified: May 3, 2012 at 12:40 am by Abishalom.)
(May 2, 2012 at 3:10 am)Shell B Wrote: There is a difference between being rude and being personally insulting. I really don't care either way, but I'm not in a position to let it slide or dish it out.
At any rate, your analogy sucks. The White House is protected. If you think the entire sky over the U.S. is watched like a hawk, I would like to know how you think we do that. I would also like to know why you think radar tracks every plane. If you lose a plane on radar, you have to rely on the pilot. I'm not entirely certain, but judging by what I know of radar capabilities and air traffic control, which is arguably minimal, we do not follow flights on radar for the entirety of the flight. Come on. It's not as if I'm saying the USAF is not responsible for anything. It's just stupid to leap from poor security, which is hardly unprecedented to government conspiracy. They did the same thing after Pearl Harbor and it was stupid then too.
Apparently you're missing the big picture which is not surprising since the big picture not important to you (your words not mine). Planes crashed into buildings. The government does not need to "track every plane" but I'm pretty sure they should be tracking planes that are flying off course TOWARDS buildings, especially ones like the Pentagon.
(May 2, 2012 at 11:43 am)Phil Wrote: The thing is before making such dumb statements about 9/11 you should have looked this stuff up first unless you want to be looked at as a crazy conspiracy theorist. In case you couldn't figure it out, my comment about your buildings is based on your misunderstanding about the towers (and the pentagon) and your snap decision that all the planes vaporized. Taken together, that shows a lack of critical thinking and an unfamiliarity with basic engineering skills (as far as building).
So accepting the government's watered down version and considering any statement opposed to the "official" story as a "dumb statement" is your idea of "critical thinking?
Haha! Oh yes Bush would have! What fucking country do you live in?
“Whoever will be free must make himself free. Freedom is no fairy gift to fall into a man's lap. What is freedom? To have the will to be responsible for one's self.” - Max Stirner.
May 3, 2012 at 5:35 am (This post was last modified: May 3, 2012 at 6:17 am by Creed of Heresy.)
(May 2, 2012 at 8:03 pm)Bgood Wrote: This is the only way the fires could have gotten hot enough to melt steel! Jet fuel on it's own would not cause skyscrapers to collapse all the way to the ground in complete rubble. Whatever you have to dispute this is B.S. that the Government is shitting out.
MOLECULAR. COHERENCY. BASIC FUCKING PRECEPTS OF ATOMIC LAW. Heat = friction caused by movement. You don't need to heat steel up to a melting point IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY WEAKENED.
GOD FUCKING DAMMIT I'VE SAID THIS THREE FUCKING TIMES NOW, anyone with even the most elementary levels of knowledge in atomic process will understand this. How the fuck did you get clearance to come anywhere NEAR a multimillion dollar war machine like an F-16 when you don't even know that heat = molecular incoherency?! This is shit you learn in fucking high school science class! DID YOU NOT PASS HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE?!
Quote:As temperature rises within the conductor, the vibration of the atomic structure increases, and so there are more free electrons being shaken loose from their orbits. This gives rise to more collisions with the electrons moving under the influence of the electric potential, making the flow of electrons towards the positive electrical potential more difficult. Therefore the resistance of a conductor slightly increases as its temperature rises.
Heat also causes a vibration within the atomic structure and this vibration "shakes loose" some of the more easily detached electrons allowing them to migrate randomly from atom to atom.
Just since I have to make it agonizingly, painfully, excruciatingly obviously clear to you: STEEL IS A CONDUCTOR.
ADDITIONALLY, a video that PROVES THAT JET FUEL FLAMES CAN WEAKEN STEEL.
And then you try to shit out some crap like "WHY DIDN'T THEY COLLAPSE AT THE EXACT SAME TIME?" Dude. Seriously. You are saying that they should have fallen down EXACTLY according to an EXACT time frame? You claim to "use empirical evidence."
Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride Wrote:You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Empirical evidence, if you ACTUALLY use it, breaks your argument like a wrecking ball through a watermelon: Dozens of variables being thrown into the equation, including building weight, location of the impact point of the jets, fuel levels in the jets, speed of the jets, mass, weight, and density of the jets [they were not the same model of jet], angles of impact, and even small shit like wind velocity and direction COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY FUCKING DESTROY any kind of predictable point in which the towers should have collapsed, so to say "WELL WHY DIDN'T THEY COLLAPSE WITHIN A SIMILAR TIMEFRAME?!" shows how utterly ignorant you are of anything resembling reality, scientific procedure, and ACTUAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. And you say you're proud of this? What, are you ALWAYS proud of the shits you take?? That explains a lot, actually.
Yeah, it was REAL hard for us "debunkers" to debunk this...
(May 3, 2012 at 12:24 am)Abishalom Wrote: So accepting the government's watered down version and considering any statement opposed to the "official" story as a "dumb statement" is your idea of "critical thinking?
No, you fucking nimrod, we accept the scientifically-established explanations universally accepted by any accomplished engineer or engineering student because they fit the fucking facts, and we oppose the people who argue against it because they're talking about shit that they don't even fucking know the first thing about!
May 3, 2012 at 11:08 am (This post was last modified: May 3, 2012 at 11:11 am by Mister Agenda.)
The essence of a conspiracy theory is speculation about an alternate explanation for the generally-accepted version of an event. It's easy to get sucked into, because when you start really looking into something, you can always find apparent inconsistencies. If conspiracy theorists applied the same standards to how a particular piece of mail wound up in their mailbox and whether it might mean something other than what it apparently says, they would quickly find themselves in the land of 'who is the Post Office really working for?'. Humans are imperfect. Our knowledge is incomplete. Different witnesses to the same event will tell a different story. We say things that can be interpreted in different ways. ALL accounts of things that happen have 'holes' if you look closely enough. For it to be reasonable to accept a conspiracy theory as true, evidence sufficient to overturn the mainstream explanation must be found. And you have to get around the fact that people are terrible at keeping a secret, and the more there are, the less likely it is that they can pull it off.
I worked for the NSA for a bit while I was still in service: America's most secret agency could not keep blowing up the towers a secret if they did it (not that the NSA does that sort of thing). Successful 'small c' conspiracies (let's you and me blow up a government building) are not 'proof of concept' for successful 'big C' conspiracies (let's you, me, and fifty other employees of the US government destroy a building in NYC using government resources and kill thousands of our fellow citizens and make it look like the Moozlims did it). Note that 'small C' conspiracies are uncovered on a fairly regular basis, and it's easier for a small group to keep a secret than a large one.
Note that in this sense, 'Intelligent Design' resembles a conspiracy theory: it's an alternative explanation for the origin of species to the mainstream theory of evolution, but it fails to provide the robust evidence it would take to overturn the ToE, and is reduced essentially to critiquing the ToE, trying to find holes in it, as though finding enough tiny descrepancies will make their version of events more likely to be true.
I don't know for sure if the 9/11 attacks were staged by the American government itself, but in my opinion, I think that there's a higher probability that that is the case.
Just by calling it a "conspiracy" or those who believe in it "9/11 truthers" doesn't make the arguments less valid.
My contention is not that the towers couldn't have burned and collapse to the floor after getting hit by the planes, but there are lots of coincidences behind the event which occurred before and after the event, that indicate that the whole thing was more likely to be organized by the CIA and other secret networks instead of some terrorists. They did it so cleverly that most people wouldn't suspect them for doing such a thing. And I think they are very good at that.
I think that the 9/11 was created by the government so that it could use that as a reason to go war with Afghanistan and Iraq and get more oil, resources, or simply to achieve whatever their objectives were at the time. If you look at history, there are many examples of false-flag terror attacks which prove that the government of a country has secretly caused harm to their own people and then they falsely blamed it on another country, so that they can justify invasion of that country.
Here are some of them and you can see more at the link below:
- A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that - under orders from the chief of the Gestapo - he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.
- Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed).
- As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba.
To me, all of this proves how good the government is at keeping secrets. People at that time didn't even believe that those events were perpetrated by their own government.
One of the reasons I think that 9/11 was a controlled demolition is because there were many reports, and even on the news, that people heard explosions inside one of the towers before getting hit by the plane. This means that there is a good chance that bombs or explosives were implanted inside the buildings to cause them to collapse to the ground completely. Also, I read that there were many simulated exercises or drills conducted by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) which started two years before the September 11 attacks - and just on the very morning of September 11 - there was about 25 of those drills.
"WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties." - USA Today
Then again, I know that it's possible that I'm deceived myself just by being a Muslim (which is what you're probably thinking right now).
Well, I just wanted to put my thoughts on this topic since you guys were talking about this. Tell me what you think.
Quote:The FBI has received substantial criticism over the past decade -- much of it valid -- but nobody can deny its record of excellence in thwarting its own Terrorist plots. Time and again, the FBI concocts a Terrorist attack, infiltrates Muslim communities in order to find recruits, persuades them to perpetrate the attack, supplies them with the money, weapons and know-how they need to carry it out -- only to heroically jump in at the last moment, arrest the would-be perpetrators whom the FBI converted, and save a grateful nation from the plot manufactured by the FBI.
Of course, this is not what happens most of the time because there are Muslims who do carry out terrorist activities on their own will, but the FBI did fabricate such terrorist attacks in the past.
(May 3, 2012 at 12:24 am)Abishalom Wrote: Apparently you're missing the big picture which is not surprising since the big picture not important to you (your words not mine).
I said that? Really, fucking quote me. I want to see precisely where I said the big picture is not important. Now you are just putting words in my mouth to discredit my opinion. What is that called again?
