(May 3, 2012 at 2:10 pm)Rayaan Wrote: Tell me what you think.

My thoughts when I personally began doing my own research on 9/11 is that the 'truthers' story didn't make any sense. This is why you lost me here:

(May 3, 2012 at 2:10 pm)Rayaan Wrote: One of the reasons I think that 9/11 was a controlled demolition is because...

I personally wouldn't be at all surprised if the US government had a hand in the attacks, the US has done (and been complicit with) some pretty awful stuff. But consider this - why did they need to collapse the entire building? From a US inside job perspective, they aren't doing it to 'spite' their own people, they're doing it to provoke a reaction from the people. The attacks in this scenario are purely symbolic, rather than an actual attempt to cause damage. What I'm getting at is that a rigged demolition would seem superfluous. It'd be enough for US operatives to train actual extremists to perform the attack for them. The most low risk plan from an inside job perspective (to me anyway) is to replicate an actual terrorist attack so as to make it indistinguishable from a real one.

Just before I continue, I'm not trying to change the subject here (since I'm not directly addressing his 9/11 case), but I did some brief research on Webster Tarpley and I don't think too much of him so far. He seems to think the British engineered WWI to maintain its dominance, that human caused climate change is fraudulent, and is additionally affiliated with the 'truther' movement who make the very claims about buildings being unable to fall at free-fall speed (which as far as I've been able to ascertain they didn't), steel melting (which it doesn't need to in order to be weakened), etc. I'm happy to acknowledge this doesn't necessarily mean he's incorrect, but it makes me seriously question his critical thinking skills given what I know about 19th and 20th century European (and colonial African) history and climate change.

I can't even remember the goal of my post now... This may or may not be attributable to the fact that it's 5:58am.

*groans* Rayaaaaaaan. C'moooonnnn, man. The nations who committed these false flag attacks were all prior to the information age. They were done at a time where communication was done via radio and telephone, there was barely any TVs, and the computer had barely even been conceived! The few events that have taken place TODAY are all in backwater third world cesspits that have little if any easy access to instantaneous information, save for the supposed supplying of M-9 pistols. And, seriously, M-9 pistols? THAT'S the strongest argument we have for saying that we're arming terrorists?? The M-9, in case you did not know, is a JOKE. You can survive six shots to your chest from an M-9, the damn thing has ZERO stopping power, ESPECIALLY not against anyone wearing a trauma vest or bulletproof vest. If anything, if we're giving the terrorists M-9s, it's not an attempt to strengthen them, it's like selling missiles with no explosive charge to an enemy; they give you money and they get something that doesn't even work. And yes, there have been SOME soldiers who have placed weapons next to killed civilians; it's called covering your ass because shooting a civilian is, get this, CONSIDERED MURDER. Gasp, choke, what a shock. Not to mention the rest of these so called "false-flag terrorist attacks" were perpetrated either by dictatorships already in control of all information flow, or they NEVER HAPPENED [like the thing with the justification for the Cuban invasion shit].

C'mon, Rayaan, I know you're too intelligent to buy into this bullshit, stop trolling me, Tiberius already does that.

You ARE trolling me...RIGHT?

I totally agree with you Rayaan. You are exactly right. These knuckleheads post "debunking so-called evidence" that doesn't debunk anything. Nearly everything I read and watched that is attributed to debunkers is elaborate sounding hogwash! I think all the fancy wording and technical numbers mystify them into believing it must be true because it "sounds" true.

Quote:Tempus wrote:

Do you agree with what Jesse says (along with others in the '911 truther' movement) about the buildings falling at 'free fall' speed?

Uh yeah...There are several video recordings of them falling staight down. Where are you going with this one? Don't tell me..they didn't fall EXACTLY at free fall speed, just nearly free fall speed within a few fractions of a second, maybe even a whole second! Who gives a shit you anal retentive dork! They fell down fast as fuck with no resistance. I don't care what any debunking video says. I see it with my own two eyes. That's the problem. You read some convoluted explanation of how some absurdity is twisted into making rational sense to you instead of just opening your EYES to plain sight and using common sense.

Quote:Creed of Heresy quoted:

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.

Seriously? This explains WTC towers collapsing at nearly free fall speed? You have got to be kidding me! This is just a bunch of ABSTRACT mumbo-jumbo that doesn't explain shit!! You post this crap to make yourself sound all sophisticated and learned on the molecular theory of heat and combustion, blah, blah blah. Like I said before, evrything you posted as "evidence" is not evidence. It is a creative ploy to divert and confuse the public from the real cold and hard to swallow truth of 911 being an inside job from top to bottom.

You have gone so off course from the obvious and plain facts! You are talking about atoms and orbits but you can't even pose the possibility that maybe THERMITE and implanted explosives were used to accelerate and intensify the fires that would ordinarily under any other circumstance react as every other fire has reacted in skyscrapers before in all of history? Im sorry but you spew nothing but ignorance. And I could care less what you think of me and all my tin-foil hat friends!

You are in such denial. You think we live in such a noble and caring country. you must believe that we fight all our pre-emptive wars in order to spread democracy and freedom to every brown skin colored nation. But in reality...You are a fucking Tool.

Tone it down, motherfuckers. I would hate to close such a popular thread.

---

Also, the all caps shit is getting old. There are posting guidelines, you know. STOP YELLING!

I know not much about conspiracies surrounding atheists-an already not very out in the open group, why they would try to surround themselves with conspiracies is beyond me. But I guess some people just like to provide an enemy image for themselves, even if that enemy image is rather ridiculous.
Atheists have no army, no country, no damn relevance to anything that really governs society.
I don't know who would make atheists the center of a conspiracy theory.

(May 3, 2012 at 4:10 pm)Bgood Wrote: Who gives a shit you anal retentive dork!

I was asking you so that I didn't put words in your mouth. From there you inferred a bunch of things about me which you can't possibly know. No need to resort to the name calling.

(May 3, 2012 at 4:10 pm)Bgood Wrote: You read some convoluted explanation of how some absurdity is twisted into making rational sense to you instead of just opening your EYES to plain sight and using common sense.

Nope, I actually watched a 9/11 truth video and then compared it to other footage. I found that the 9/11 truth footage began once the buildings had already started collapsing, making it conform to free-fall speeds. The only explanation I read at that time was one defining what free-fall speed and conditions are. The difference was more than fractions of a second. It was several whole seconds longer.

Quote:I don't know who would make atheists the center of a conspiracy theory.

What the hell are you talking about?

Anyways,

Quote:so to say "WELL WHY DIDN'T THEY COLLAPSE WITHIN A SIMILAR TIMEFRAME?!"

I still think that is a rational question. Just for starters, wouldn't it make more sense for the first tower to get hit to fall down first? Of course I understand there are variables. I also wouldn't expect the towers to fall within exactly the same timeframe. But this is one more "anamoly" of general physics and common sense that occured that day, among so many others.

I just wonder, How in the world could any person of reasonable intellect agree that the "official" story, as told in the 911 Commission Report, is scientifically sound and accurate beyond doubt????? Now That is an absurd claim!

Quote:What the hell are you talking about?

Anyways,

What the hell am I supposed to talk about?[/code]

(May 3, 2012 at 3:39 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(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?

Here's what you said...

(May 2, 2012 at 1:18 am)Shell B Wrote: How is the big picture more important than the details? That is so absurd. The big picture is made up of the details. Those unwilling to "parse sentences" are, to my mind, those unwilling to actually sort through the facts. It is easy to have a preconceived notion and a preference for the outcome. It is, again to my mind, very uncool to make wide-sweeping claims based on these notions and preferences and then refuse to acknowledge the details that really make up the entire scenario.

"Hey, who cares if the details don't match up? The governments is mean! That's the big picture and I'm sticking to it." Fuck that.

So I apologize since those were not your exact words. But the only conclusion we can draw from such a statement is that the "big picture" is not very important to you or at least not as important as the detail (whatever that means because it takes details to form the "big picture").

Absolutely not. You can infer that the details are equally important.