Posts: 541
Threads: 16
Joined: May 24, 2009
Reputation:
7
RE: 9/11 Truthers
July 20, 2009 at 5:13 pm
(July 20, 2009 at 3:06 am)Pippy Wrote: Quote:Two identical buildings, two identical plane crashes, two identical results. Doesn't require faith.
That statement in untrue. There can not be two identical plane crashes, and we know for a fact that the two buildings were hit in distinctively different ways. No one has talked about the third building, the pictures of cut supports, the liquid metal pouring out of the tower before it collapsed... The bigger picture...
To Adrian, I give as much credit to 9/11 debunkers as I do to 9/11 truthers. Well, almost as much credit. It is all hearsay about a very complex and confusing event. I don't want to read other peoples raving bias, and then consider myself learned. And I mean that one way or another, 9/11 truth, or 9/11-happened-like-we-have-been-told... I try to come to my own conclusions, as I think it is more valuable.
And remember, I only try to make claims I can support. If you read the official 9/11 Omission Report, you will see that it is not possible for that to be the real story. Literally not possible. So by stating that we are being lied to, and leaving it at that, I feel I cannot possibly be wrong. I have a bunch of ideas about what could have happened, and about what I think did not happen... But those are ideas, theories...
It's the Lucitania. Or the USS Cole. And what was that one we let the isrealies shoot up? Within history, 9/11 fits right in its place.
-Pip
I read the 911 report. There was nothing in it to suggest otherwise. The report was mostly blame sharing. The buildings were both struck by 747's into the side of the building. Both buildings began their collaspe at the point of impact. If explosives were used the would of had to have been placed at or near the floor of impact, and fused to detonate at a certain temperature and...why the fuck am I allowing myself to be dragged into this stupid discussion?
"On Earth as it is in Heaven, the Cosmic Roots of the Bible" available on the Amazon.
Posts: 2721
Threads: 99
Joined: October 8, 2008
Reputation:
17
RE: 9/11 Truthers
July 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm
(July 20, 2009 at 4:13 pm)Samson Wrote: I'm sorry, but for me personally, Pearl Harbor was by far the worst "Terrorist" attack in our history.
I don't see how you can class Pearl as a terrorist action, even if they didn't quite declare war on time, it was far too well planned and wholly carried out by Japan's military.
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Posts: 2375
Threads: 186
Joined: August 29, 2008
Reputation:
38
RE: 9/11 Truthers
July 20, 2009 at 5:58 pm
(July 20, 2009 at 4:13 pm)Samson Wrote: Eilonnwy....I'm sorry, but for me personally, Pearl Harbor was by far the worst "Terrorist" attack in our history. As far as cost goes, I'm sure the Trade Centers was much more.
Yes, I understand that one was a military base, and one was civilians. I believe it was worse on that point, but for an over all, the attack on Pearl Harbor brought us into a World War, and the other gave an excuse for a bullshit war....
Pearl Harbor, as horrible as it was, is not considered a terrorist attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_i...ted_States
And the category of "worst" refers to death toll. You may personally disagree, but I'm only presenting the facts.
Posts: 541
Threads: 16
Joined: May 24, 2009
Reputation:
7
RE: 9/11 Truthers
July 20, 2009 at 6:13 pm
(July 20, 2009 at 4:13 pm)Samson Wrote: Eilonnwy....I'm sorry, but for me personally, Pearl Harbor was by far the worst "Terrorist" attack in our history. As far as cost goes, I'm sure the Trade Centers was much more.
Yes, I understand that one was a military base, and one was civilians. I believe it was worse on that point, but for an over all, the attack on Pearl Harbor brought us into a World War, and the other gave an excuse for a bullshit war....
Hawaii wasn't even a state back then, it was a formally sovereign area stolen by the US. Japan didn't attack civilians and in fact dropped leaflets pointing out US imperialism and encouraged natives to revolt against their white masters.
"On Earth as it is in Heaven, the Cosmic Roots of the Bible" available on the Amazon.
Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
143
RE: 9/11 Truthers
July 21, 2009 at 2:44 am
As people have stated previously; the twin towers were supported by a central column made of steel. Both planes went straight through the center column.
The intense heat weakened (not melted) the steel, and given that it had to support the top of the structure, it collapsed due to the weight.
As for building 7, I don't see how you find the official story to be ridiculous. The North Tower collapsed, with large chunks of debris (we're talking sections of the outer building several stories high) crashing into the building. That alone caused structural damage, and the fires that were started as a result weakened the structure in the exact same way it did to the towers.
Posts: 2375
Threads: 186
Joined: August 29, 2008
Reputation:
38
RE: 9/11 Truthers
July 21, 2009 at 9:02 am
Keep in mind also, that for Building 7 it was damaged from the collapse and on fire. The rescue workers didn't focus their attention on it because it was evacuated. They were far more concerned with trying to save people in the debris. It was ignored and so the fire's raged till it collapsed.
Posts: 851
Threads: 8
Joined: April 23, 2009
Reputation:
4
RE: 9/11 Truthers
July 21, 2009 at 9:30 am
It's not that it collapsed, but the it received no mention in the official report. That is all I am saying, I don't want to argue, since we are only armed with opposing hearsay...
-Pip
Posts: 2375
Threads: 186
Joined: August 29, 2008
Reputation:
38
RE: 9/11 Truthers
July 21, 2009 at 9:52 am
Does it need a mention? It was an empty building that collapsed because two huge fucking towers collapsed right next to it. It didn't kill anyone. It's inconsequential to the events.
Opposing hearsay? Hardly. One side has evidence, substantial evidence. I don't care what the government says, I'm talking about the science.
Honestly, if you don't want to argue, then why are you here? I've only started to notice you because I was away for a while, but I see a consistent trend in your posts about "Not wanting to argue," and "Why am I getting into this?" This forum is about arguments, debates, and such. People are going to disagree and pick apart everything you say here. If you're not comfortable with that then you shouldn't get into the conversation in the first place. Although honestly I would hope you stick around and actually tried to learn something. I think we've all had beliefs about one thing or another that were wrong, but at least most of us can admit it when the evidence finally doesn't stand up. In fact, we first generation atheists wouldn't be here if we couldn't.
Posts: 851
Threads: 8
Joined: April 23, 2009
Reputation:
4
RE: 9/11 Truthers
July 21, 2009 at 9:30 pm
I only wish to have constructive argument.
To argue for the 'facts' and 'evidence' about god or 9/11 is a misnomer, all we have on it is ideas and hearsay.
I have ideas and hearsay about god, you have ideas and hearsay about not-god. We can go around for days, but neither of us is demonstrability right (to the other). It is a useless argument.
We can go there, I don't care, but I have to try to avoid it. I am not scared of your guys logic, it hasn't been highly impressive as of yet.
Thank you,
-Pip
Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
143
RE: 9/11 Truthers
July 21, 2009 at 9:46 pm
(July 21, 2009 at 9:30 am)Pippy Wrote: It's not that it collapsed, but the it received no mention in the official report. That is all I am saying, I don't want to argue, since we are only armed with opposing hearsay...
-Pip It didn't have an official mention because the report deemed that is needed more investigation.
The final report was released last year: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A...omment.pdf and concluded that structural damage caused by the collapse of the towers, followed by intense heat from the fires, weakened the building and caused the collapse.
|
odcast:: 
