atheists and "conspiracy" theories

[Abishalom]

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.

No it's not that easy unless we rationalize it as you have. Even if the top floors collapse that does not explain the domino effect we see in the WTC collapse videos. You're claiming that because the floors were large the top floors cause the lower floor (that are not on fire) to just collapse at once (in less than 2 hours). It doesn't work like that. The WTC were structurally sound. The only way it could have collapsed (under your proposed scenario) is if the whole structure was on fire, but it was the top. That not enough to enact the devastation that occurs upon the WTC.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says: http://www.theonion.com/video/911-conspi...ays,14222/

[Cyberman]

I'm quite happy to talk about the Moon missions since denial of them is so hilariously ridiculous. The 9/11 attacks, however, are not funny at all and I consider denial of the reality of that day to be a tremendous slap in the face to the victims, to their friends and relatives, and to everyone who went beyond the call of duty and risked their own lives to save the lives of others.

I despise anyone who wants to rewrite such tragic history for their own stupid ends.

[Shell B]

No it's not that easy unless we rationalize it as you have. Even if the top floors collapses that does not explain the domino effect we see in the WTC collapse videos. You're claiming that because the floors were large the top floors cause the lower floor (that are not on fire) to just collapse at once (in less than 2 hours). It doesn't work like that.

Rationalize it in what way? I mean, you say rationalize as if it is a bad thing. Would you rather I unrationalize and make wild claims?

Yes, it does completely explain the domino effect. It's simple. Something heavy lands on something else. If it is heavy enough to collapse that something, it will do so. It then gains the weight of the said thing it has collapsed and will subsequently crush the next thing below it, given that said thing is also not strong enough to hold up the weight of these collapsed structures. Such was the case with the floors of the World Trade Centers. Now, if it was controlled demolition, there would have been explosions within the structure while rescue efforts were underway. There was no such thing. Furthermore, it would not have collapsed from the top down. It would have collapsed from the inside. The effect would have been pretty much the same, but we would not have seen very clearly that it was being crushed from the top, as we see from every angle in every video.

Observe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdqWRHe4AKs

There is a very notable difference. You can even fucking see the flashes as the demo materials explode.

[Abishalom]

I'm quite happy to talk about the Moon missions since denial of them is so hilariously ridiculous. The 9/11 attacks, however, are not funny at all and I consider denial of the reality of that day to be a tremendous slap in the face to the victims, to their friends and relatives, and to everyone who went beyond the call of duty and risked their own lives to save the lives of others.

I despise anyone who wants to rewrite such tragic history for their own stupid ends.

You're acting like "conspiracy theorists" of 9/11 are saying "we don't believe people died". That's the furthest from the truth. Most conspiracy theories I've read suggest some kind of cover up. Which is obvious when you actually weigh the facts.

[jackman]

, and every plane on all crash sites did as well.

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.

[Shell B]

I'm quite happy to talk about the Moon missions since denial of them is so hilariously ridiculous. The 9/11 attacks, however, are not funny at all and I consider denial of the reality of that day to be a tremendous slap in the face to the victims, to their friends and relatives, and to everyone who went beyond the call of duty and risked their own lives to save the lives of others.

I despise anyone who wants to rewrite such tragic history for their own stupid ends.

I feel that way about Holocaust Denialism. Makes me wish I had a cock with which to slap people in the face.

---

Most conspiracy theories I've read suggest some kind of cover up. Which is obvious when you actually weigh the facts.

No, it is obvious when you deny the facts. I've read about it from both angles. I've watched documentaries about it from both angles. The only side that holds water is the side that sees what obviously happened. Hint: It's not the theorists' side.

---

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.

I'll take the one from MIT any day of the week.

[Christi]

Actually, the economy started going down in mid 2000, especially stocks.

I don't have to learn history as I lived it and was old enough to remember it.

BTW, get some manners.

The stock market? That's what you are hanging your hat on to prove a vast conspiracy? The market lost a fortune after 9-11 and it dwarfed any earlier temporary losses. Unemployment remained stable and as previously noted we had a huge surplus that Bush pissed away but apparently facts mean nothing to conspiracy nuts.

Go fuck yourself.

What is wrong with you? The market had nothing to do with the conspiracy issue. I posted that with the economy starting to tank, no one cared about Sadam Hussein. And yes, there actually was a recession in 2001 and it did start before 9/11/2001. The housing market hadn't collapsed, but stocks feel a lot and those that had everything invested in the market lost mostly all of their money unless they pulled it out right away.

If the economy of the country you live in starts going badly, the last thing you care about is spending loads of money to invade another country. Bush would have had no support for invading Iraq and Afghanistan if 9/11 had not occurred.

Well, if there was no conspiracy, then we need to seriously revamp the Air Force, because they were just too busy to do anything about those planes flying into New York. Some crackpot pilots and their pals overtake planes and the Air Force is nowhere.

[Cyberman]

I feel that way about Holocaust Denialism. Makes me wish I had a cock with which to slap people in the face.

Now there's an image I won't be able to get out of my head for ten minutes or so...

You're acting like "conspiracy theorists" of 9/11 are saying "we don't believe people died". That's the furthest from the truth. Most conspiracy theories I've read suggest some kind of cover up. Which is obvious when you actually weigh the facts.

I never claimed anything of the sort. If that's how you see me "acting" it says more about you than it does me. "Most conspiracy theories I've read suggest some kind of cover up"? That's practically the very definition of conspiracy; it's like saying shit stinks. What I am saying is that propogating such conspiracies in the face of reality cheapens the human tragedy that happened on that day. Also: burden of proof - you has it.

Oh, and my last comment wasn't a dig at you, earl grey... it was just unfortunate timing.

[Abishalom]

I feel that way about Holocaust Denialism. Makes me wish I had a cock with which to slap people in the face.

Now there's an image I won't be able to get out of my head for ten minutes or so...

You're acting like "conspiracy theorists" of 9/11 are saying "we don't believe people died". That's the furthest from the truth. Most conspiracy theories I've read suggest some kind of cover up. Which is obvious when you actually weigh the facts.

I never claimed anything of the sort. If that's how you see me "acting" it says more about you than it does me. "Most conspiracy theories I've read suggest some kind of cover up"? That's practically the very definition of conspiracy; it's like saying shit stinks. What I am saying is that propogating such conspiracies in the face of reality cheapens the human tragedy that happened on that day. Also: burden of proof - you has it.

Oh, and my last comment wasn't a dig at you, earl grey... it was just unfortunate timing.

Indeed. The point I was trying to make is that nobody is disregarding the victims. Some people just do not believe the watered down version the government insists on. The facts speak for themselves.