atheists and "conspiracy" theories

[Bgood]

Don't pretend you're debating with a dipshit.

Obviously I'm not pretending.

I think the fact that I served 4 years in the military has a little more clout than what some civilian girl has to say about how Air Force operations work. I worked on F-16s and i know how fast they can be launched and deployed...within a matter of minutes.

And to say that multiple training exercises that simulate airliners crashing into the twin towers on 911 is just a coincidence is probably the most asinine and idiotic thing I ever heard along with the ongoing lists of other "pure coincindences". You are in denial masquerading as intellectual honesty.

Even IF it was a coincidence that these exercises were taking place, then the government was obviously wary and preparing for an attack on the WTC towers. That kind of takes away the whole element of surprise thing when they are preparing for that very scenario!

---

Man, It's like talking to stubborn 5 year olds!

[Shell B]

Don't pretend you're debating with a dipshit.

Obviously I'm not pretending.

Enough of that or you're going to get a warning. I'm going out of my way not to insult you personally, despite your generally laughed at viewpoint. I don't like to dole out warnings for personal insults against myself, but experience has shown that letting them slide has far more catastrophic results. Now, learn how to debate properly without resorting to elementary school tactics and I will continue to afford you the same respect.

I think the fact that I served 4 years in the military has a little more clout than what some civilian girl has to say about how Air Force operations work.

Assumptions, assumptions. A. I'm not a girl. I'm a fully grown adult and my sex has absolutely no bearing on the validity of my argument. B. I may be a civilian, but so are you, as of now, chief. C. I'm pretty confident that I am well-versed in the workings of the Air Force. I cannot claim to have been in the Air Force, but I assure you that living on McChord/Lewis for three years afforded me some insight as does the fact that I am a military historian, among other things. Here's where the big picture comes in handy and that old adage about assumptions really takes a front seat.

I worked on F-16s and i know how fast they can be launched and deployed...within a matter of minutes.

So, you were a mechanic? That doesn't sound like upper management. It sounds an awful lot like you have absolutely no inside insight into 9-11. It doesn't matter how fast they are launched, if they are not deployed.

And to say that multiple training exercises that simulate airliners crashing into the twin towers on 911 is just a coincidence is probably the most asinine and idiotic thing I ever heard along with the ongoing lists of other "pure coincindences". You are in denial masquerading as intellectual honesty.

I didn't say it was a coincidence. I didn't even acknowledge it. If you need to keep a list of points and retorts, I suggest you open a word file now.

Even IF it was a coincidence that these exercises were taking place, then the government was obviously wary and preparing for an attack on the WTC towers. That kind of takes away the whole element of surprise thing when they are preparing for that very scenario!

Again, I didn't say it was a coincidence. I wonder how much time you wasted arguing something I never even responded to.

Man, It's like talking to stubborn 5 year olds!

I suppose you have experience with that from working in a day care for four years?

[Christi]

Are you kidding me? Air traffic is a lot different, and planes can be tracked by radar.

Yeah, local Joe Police is in charge of Pentagon security? Plane changing course and flying towards the Pentagon is compared to a traffic cop?

With your justification, we should not be surprised if a domestic flight rams into the White House any day now. I mean it would be a domestic flight and all. How would the Air Force have any idea whether or not it's hijacked? It's not like they track all flights in our airspace or something. I wonder if they even care about international flights. Maybe they just let them fly all over to. Maybe they just let them fly over the Pentagon whenever they feel like it.

*Maybe this has been debated too much and people are getting annoyed. All I know is many people have been rude on this thread not just one.

[Shell B]

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.

[Bgood]

If Christianity is an on-going conspiracy against mankind for over 2000 years...why couldn't 911 be a conspiracy for the past 10 years?

[libalchris]

If Christianity is an on-going conspiracy against mankind for over 2000 years...why couldn't 911 be a conspiracy for the past 10 years?

Christianity isn't a conspiracy. People actually believe in it.

[Phil]

BTW I noticed how you failed to respond to my simple question. A plane hit a building near the top of the building (not its foundation) yet it crumbles IN PLACE (similar to controlled demolition). Please explain...

This is very simple. The planes crashed into the WTC travelling in excess of 500 mph. The initial collision dislodged fire retardant insulation that was on the steel beams of the structure. The planes were also loaded with fuel. Remember, the terrorists specifically hijacked planes taking cross country flights so there would be lots of fuel on board. This fuel spattered all over the building and began to burn. As the fuel burned, it weakened the steel superstructure because the insulation was gone. As the steel weakened, it began to sag. Once the critical point was reached, the supports gave way and the top floors pancaked onto those below. Once begun, nothing could stop it and the building collapsed in place.

Understand now?

You are wasting your time and breath.

---

The fires are near the top, not at the top. If the weight of the detached structure, meaning the very top floors crashed down, which it did, it would only need to crash down to the next floor in order for more weight to then be applied, thus collapsing the next floor and so on. It's not rocket science. If the top floor of my house collapsed, it would likely collapse the next floor, despite there being steel beams in my cellar. If there were another floor beneath that, it would just keep going. In short, it only needed to be heavy enough to collapse the next floor. The structure of the entirety of the building didn't have a chance once the structure of the affected floors was compromised. There was more than enough weight to take it all down. I was in those trade centers. Each story was massive in its own right. Also, terrorists can think too. In a way, it was controlled demolition, just not done with construction explosives. It was done with fuel.

---

Take this photo for example.



See where the plane hit? There are several floors above that area. How much do you suppose that weighs? I'm guessing that is more than each of the houses of the people in this thread combined.

Shell,

There is a video of one tower collapsing that was taken from Trinity church's lot. You can clearly see the walls of the tower bowing and you can see the twist of the entire corner that started the collapse. What you said is definitely correct but I like to illustrate it with something we are all fairly familiar with. That is tipping a vending machine. A vending machine may only weigh 500-600 lbs so many people feel they can tip the machine (since it is lighter when balanced on an angle) but people also forget when that tipped machine falls approximately two feet, there is maybe .01% of the human population that can safely stop the machine from falling. In a like manner in the video from Trinity church we see evidence of the beams weakening and the top of the tower rotating. Once the beam between the floors was weakened enough and the top portion of the tower fell freely for about 2 seconds, there was not a power on Earth that could stop the collapse.

9/11 Truthers are really a bunch of idiots.

---

Excuse me? Are you practicing critical thinking or just parroting what you were told? There is plenty of debris from the planes at the wold trade centers and in the pentagon.

ok, fine, where was any single piece of debris, from a plane, large enough to not be able to carry with one's hands? perhaps there are some, but if there is, then you certainly will post a video of it, right? and i hope it's not one of old rumsfeld running into a flaming hole in the pentagon and coming out with a piece of a rudder with a blue tarp over it.

i'm not looking for validation for what i think, i don't even have a complete thought on this entire subject and apparently i'm just taking shots in order to see who is who and why on here. what i'm wondering is why do people not look at papers like i'm posting below. everyone is posting videos, i can do that all day, it's now answering anything, it's at most entertaining. if you HAVE looked at studies that convince you one way or another and it leads you to believe anyone else hasn't quite gotten it right, then that's great. sounds to me like most parrots are the ones who just watch the news and chant in unison, "yeah they're all dummies".

what didn't i see? everything i know and don't know, i was told by somebody. papers i've read, documentaries i've watched (granted, movies are made for sensationalism) and any other form of input. it's all been told to me. if you didn't work on the site, then it's all been told to you as well. you may have heard different into and may have come to different conclusions with that partial that you received. fine.

richard gage? please! he's an architect, not an engineer of any sort. no, i haven't watched his video. does he have any relevance?

here is byu professor steven jone's study: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volum...llapse.pdf

here is an mit study against the previous one posted: http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

they're both valid papers from reputable programs that give very valid hypothesis as to what happened.

No I won't post a video or pictures. You can look them up yourself as most of them were exhibits in the Moussouai trial. The exhibits are at this link http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecase.../exhibits/

As far as the pentagon debris, look at the picture of the punch out hole in the C ring and you will see plenty of debris. Inside the pentagon there was also debris like the landing gear and seats from the plane with passengers. At the world trade center, there was debris in the streets and on top of world trade center 5. There was even debris of the plane you claim vaporized at Shanksville.

---

Before anyone says, but, but, they found molten (as in liquified) metal at the base of the WTC, that is not true. The "evidence" for this is red hot hunks of metal that look like they could have been puddles in photographs. Believe me, steel that had gone through a collapse like that would be malformed with or without melting temperatures and red hot is not melting. If that were true, we would be unable to weld anything, as the metal around a weld tends to get red hot during the weld, yet it does not melt. White hot is melting or about to melt.

Shell,

Hunks of aluminum that were melted (then solidified) were found. I even held a chunk. Anyway, tremendous pressure creates lots of heat so it wouldn't be much of a surprise to find evidence of melted aluminum and other metals. As a matter of fact, there is a picture somewhere of what is called the meteorite that is a few floors from one of the towers that was compressed during the collapse. As the floors compressed, everything caught between (furniture, people, computers, etc...) were melted, crushed and burned. Why the 9/11 deniers make a big deal of anything melted in a fire is a hallmark of stupidity.

---

(this isn't research that i read, this is what i know as a builder. there are dampers between verticals, firestop applications between horizontals, so much protection to keep fires from spreading, but that's neither here nor there.)

To be honest, I would be afraid to set foot into a building of yours after reading your posts. here.

Tell me, being in construction you should know this, why are we to avoid grinding a ferrous metal in the presence of aluminum and most importantly water?

Or let's make it simpler with a concrete example....

Aluminum planes, aluminum facade, rusty steel beams (yes, there are plenty of photographs if you look) and as an added bonus - water from the broken main. What does that lead to?

---

Oh... like an explosive. I get it.

No actually you don't and as long as you want to believe explosions equals explosives you never will.

In a fire in an office building, things go boom. Hell, in a fire in any building (except an empty abandoned one), things go boom but there will always be some idiot to claim it was an explosive.

[Thor]

I think the fact that I served 4 years in the military has a little more clout than what some civilian girl has to say about how Air Force operations work.

Oh, you were in the Air Force? And this qualifies you to speak on how "Air Force operations work"..... how?

I worked on F-16s

Oh, I see.... you were a MECHANIC. What rank did you hold? I'm guessing you were maybe an E-3 or an E-4. How would your low level position qualify you to speak on "Air Force operations"? Because these are things where OFFICERS would have the best knowledge.

and i know how fast they can be launched and deployed...within a matter of minutes.

Great! The planes could be deployed in "minutes". And if Russia had launched an attack I'm sure fighters would have been in the air almost immediately to intercept incoming enemy planes. But this was a hijack situation! Until planes started plowing into buildings, no one had any idea what the hijacker's intentions were. Would you want fighters to shoot down a hijacked civilian airliner if the hijackers planned to land at an airport and try to negotiate their demands? Plus, the order to shoot down a civilian airliner would have to come directly from the President!

Man, It's like talking to stubborn 5 year olds!

Tell me about it!

[Mister Agenda]

I'm sure Neil Armstrong would disagree with you.

Possibly violently.

[Jaysyn]

Unfathomably hot fire at the top 11-17 floors will not destroy a whole 110 story building.

It will when you have 1796 °F liquid fire running down the supports.