Total Posts:88|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Was 9/11 a government conspiracy?

Jessalyn
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 9:43:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If not, how do you explain the collapse of Building 7? I'm not making an open claim either way, just trying to get some discussion going on this. I'm hesitant to buy into conspiracy theories like this, but it's difficult not to when looking at the videos of how this building collapsed. Thoughts?
WARNING: Hitchslaps may become inflamed when accompanied by unceasing stupidity.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 10:07:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Its not a dichotomy. As in either explain it or else it must be. There are alot of explanations about it. The most unlikely is a conspiracy. You are making it sound like a God argument. If we don't know well it must be God.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 4:05:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The collapse of building 7 was explained thoroughly in a report about a thousand pages long put together by a team of 200 scientists and structural engineers. The building had a unique design that made it susceptible to collapse under those conditions. The fires caused thermal expansion (when steel expands because of the heat) which caused the building to warp. This caused too much pressure being placed on one of the central columns causing it to buckle. When that happened it the pressure was then transferred to the adjacent columns causing them to buckle as well. It set off a chain reaction of failing columns and floors which eventually lead to most of the internal support collapsing, thus transferring the remaining weight to the outer columns. By that point there was essentially nothing left supporting the building so the entire structure came down.

That's my understanding anyway, RoyLathem explains the collapse very well in his debate about the subject:
http://www.debate.org...

I also recommend the following thesis on the logical fallacies of conspiracy theories. It is a very good read for someone who is fairly new to this stuff:
http://warp.povusers.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 6:55:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
That warp site is actually a great citation. Not only is it useful for conspiracy theories, but it's amazingly useful for general debate.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 8:49:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 9:43:38 PM, Jessalyn wrote:
If not, how do you explain the collapse of Building 7? I'm not making an open claim either way, just trying to get some discussion going on this. I'm hesitant to buy into conspiracy theories like this, but it's difficult not to when looking at the videos of how this building collapsed. Thoughts?:

Building 7 was only a few hundred feet away from the main buildings. Falling debris that's on fire sheers part of the room, the inside of Building 7 catches fire.

Mystery solved, no conspiracy necessary, just common sense and physics.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 8:52:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Was 9/11 a government conspiracy?

No. Not it was not.

At 7/29/2012 9:43:38 PM, Jessalyn wrote:
If not, how do you explain the collapse of Building 7?

Gravity.

I'm not making an open claim either way, just trying to get some discussion going on this. I'm hesitant to buy into conspiracy theories like this, but it's difficult not to when looking at the videos of how this building collapsed. Thoughts?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 9:55:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh, the manifesto I intend to add to this when I get home...

I'll just add, though, that I think it's strange, how inclined people are to believe "simulations" and government-funded "investigations" that claim a building connected to the wtc complex by a mostly glass bridge (but across the street and separated from the twin towers by a whole other building ) fell directly downward because of fires and external damage from the towers falling (am effect that somehow did not extend to any of the other several buildings in the area, including the one that separated the twins and building 7).

You know, just because it's unlikely that "the government"as some miscellaneous, nondescript entity did it, does not automatically prove the nonsensical story we've been told is true.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 9:58:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 9:55:41 AM, Ren wrote:
Oh, the manifesto I intend to add to this when I get home...

I'll just add, though, that I think it's strange, how inclined people are to believe "simulations" and government-funded "investigations" that claim a building connected to the wtc complex by a mostly glass bridge (but across the street and separated from the twin towers by a whole other building ) fell directly downward because of fires and external damage from the towers falling (am effect that somehow did not extend to any of the other several buildings in the area, including the one that separated the twins and building 7).

You know, just because it's unlikely that "the government"as some miscellaneous, nondescript entity did it, does not automatically prove the nonsensical story we've been told is true.

I think its odd that people who have no associations, affiliations, or connections to the government pretend to know so much. In reality, they do not.
But make no mistake about it, this was planned.
And my insight comes from a person who is in the CIA.
Anything else on this site here is nonsense to the highest degree.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 10:30:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 9:58:51 AM, inferno wrote:
At 7/30/2012 9:55:41 AM, Ren wrote:
Oh, the manifesto I intend to add to this when I get home...

I'll just add, though, that I think it's strange, how inclined people are to believe "simulations" and government-funded "investigations" that claim a building connected to the wtc complex by a mostly glass bridge (but across the street and separated from the twin towers by a whole other building ) fell directly downward because of fires and external damage from the towers falling (am effect that somehow did not extend to any of the other several buildings in the area, including the one that separated the twins and building 7).

You know, just because it's unlikely that "the government"as some miscellaneous, nondescript entity did it, does not automatically prove the nonsensical story we've been told is true.

I think its odd that people who have no associations, affiliations, or connections to the government pretend to know so much. In reality, they do not.: But make no mistake about it, this was planned.
And my insight comes from a person who is in the CIA.
Anything else on this site here is nonsense to the highest degree.

You know... what's funny, Inferno, is that the bolded is absolutely correct.

But, the remainder of your post, along with the majority of your posts, are painted with such a degree of nonsensical hyperbole or dubiousness, that it's hard to ever take you seriously.

I mean, let's be real -- you don't know anyone in the CIA, and if you did, he or she probably wouldn't tell you anything like military or governmental secrets, as they keep those under duress of threatened disappearance or death. However, even if you did know someone from the CIA, and they did tell you information that appearently no one else (at least, on the internet) has access to, then I find it hard to believe that you would violate his or her trust and place such information, of all places, on a social networking website for debaters and otherwise argumentative individuals. Not Wikileaks or your local newspaper, or even a blog, but here.

Moreover, this is along the same vein as the nonsense that you post about the Illuminati and such shiit.

So, really, all you're doing by concurring is robbing my post of credibility. The fact is that we likely do not know what happened on 9/11, but more than likely, it wasn't "the government," it probably wasn't "an attack," and it may not have had anything to do with explosives.

Ultimately, I can't help but assume that you're some sort of class clown -- you clearly realize that you're the resident Troll, and don't mind how derisive people remain toward you, so I figure you're probably the alt of some reg that fancies him or herself way too funny in your own right, particularly given that your activity spikes when things are most boring here and the site at large is not entangled in some general controversy. Kind of suggests that when things are more interesting, you're on your main account.

I could be wrong.

But, if I'm not, the fact that you've taken to agreeing with me lately has been given some recent interest in making fun of me. That's fine, and I don't expect everyone, or even most people, to agree with me. On the other hand, I don't appreciate it.

In any case, I must impress upon the fact that, indeed, it is most likely that no one here has access to any dependable information regarding the incident, and nor do we really know what happened. In reality, since it's so likely that no one knows what happened, and no one will for a good while (unless we really push for it, and over a decade later, clearly, not enough are interested), it's just easier to believe something pleasant, such as that it was some single boogeyman that, with no way to defend himself, announced it to the world and then played hide and go seek until our heroic government found him in the middle of a busy town chilling at his house with his family and shot him (and the rest of his family, which is somehow to no one's outrage) in the head.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 10:43:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 10:30:50 AM, Ren wrote:
At 7/30/2012 9:58:51 AM, inferno wrote:
At 7/30/2012 9:55:41 AM, Ren wrote:
Oh, the manifesto I intend to add to this when I get home...

I'll just add, though, that I think it's strange, how inclined people are to believe "simulations" and government-funded "investigations" that claim a building connected to the wtc complex by a mostly glass bridge (but across the street and separated from the twin towers by a whole other building ) fell directly downward because of fires and external damage from the towers falling (am effect that somehow did not extend to any of the other several buildings in the area, including the one that separated the twins and building 7).

You know, just because it's unlikely that "the government"as some miscellaneous, nondescript entity did it, does not automatically prove the nonsensical story we've been told is true.

I think its odd that people who have no associations, affiliations, or connections to the government pretend to know so much. In reality, they do not.: But make no mistake about it, this was planned.
And my insight comes from a person who is in the CIA.
Anything else on this site here is nonsense to the highest degree.

You know... what's funny, Inferno, is that the bolded is absolutely correct.

But, the remainder of your post, along with the majority of your posts, are painted with such a degree of nonsensical hyperbole or dubiousness, that it's hard to ever take you seriously.

I mean, let's be real -- you don't know anyone in the CIA, and if you did, he or she probably wouldn't tell you anything like military or governmental secrets, as they keep those under duress of threatened disappearance or death. However, even if you did know someone from the CIA, and they did tell you information that appearently no one else (at least, on the internet) has access to, then I find it hard to believe that you would violate his or her trust and place such information, of all places, on a social networking website for debaters and otherwise argumentative individuals. Not Wikileaks or your local newspaper, or even a blog, but here.

Moreover, this is along the same vein as the nonsense that you post about the Illuminati and such shiit.

So, really, all you're doing by concurring is robbing my post of credibility. The fact is that we likely do not know what happened on 9/11, but more than likely, it wasn't "the government," it probably wasn't "an attack," and it may not have had anything to do with explosives.

Ultimately, I can't help but assume that you're some sort of class clown -- you clearly realize that you're the resident Troll, and don't mind how derisive people remain toward you, so I figure you're probably the alt of some reg that fancies him or herself way too funny in your own right, particularly given that your activity spikes when things are most boring here and the site at large is not entangled in some general controversy. Kind of suggests that when things are more interesting, you're on your main account.

I could be wrong.

But, if I'm not, the fact that you've taken to agreeing with me lately has been given some recent interest in making fun of me. That's fine, and I don't expect everyone, or even most people, to agree with me. On the other hand, I don't appreciate it.

In any case, I must impress upon the fact that, indeed, it is most likely that no one here has access to any dependable information regarding the incident, and nor do we really know what happened. In reality, since it's so likely that no one knows what happened, and no one will for a good while (unless we really push for it, and over a decade later, clearly, not enough are interested), it's just easier to believe something pleasant, such as that it was some single boogeyman that, with no way to defend himself, announced it to the world and then played hide and go seek until our heroic government found him in the middle of a busy town chilling at his house with his family and shot him (and the rest of his family, which is somehow to no one's outrage) in the head.

False. I do know someone who works in the CIA, as I have family who live in the
DC area. I have spent many days in that city, and found myself having unorthodoxed conversations with me. Freemasons, clergymen, politicians.
I have spoken to them all and have had some very in depth conversations with people you will probably never meet in your conventional lifetime.
Again, you say so much, and yet it means absolutely nothing..............
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 10:48:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 10:30:50 AM, Ren wrote:
At 7/30/2012 9:58:51 AM, inferno wrote:
At 7/30/2012 9:55:41 AM, Ren wrote:
Oh, the manifesto I intend to add to this when I get home...

I'll just add, though, that I think it's strange, how inclined people are to believe "simulations" and government-funded "investigations" that claim a building connected to the wtc complex by a mostly glass bridge (but across the street and separated from the twin towers by a whole other building ) fell directly downward because of fires and external damage from the towers falling (am effect that somehow did not extend to any of the other several buildings in the area, including the one that separated the twins and building 7).

You know, just because it's unlikely that "the government"as some miscellaneous, nondescript entity did it, does not automatically prove the nonsensical story we've been told is true.

I think its odd that people who have no associations, affiliations, or connections to the government pretend to know so much. In reality, they do not.: But make no mistake about it, this was planned.
And my insight comes from a person who is in the CIA.
Anything else on this site here is nonsense to the highest degree.

You know... what's funny, Inferno, is that the bolded is absolutely correct.

But, the remainder of your post, along with the majority of your posts, are painted with such a degree of nonsensical hyperbole or dubiousness, that it's hard to ever take you seriously.

I mean, let's be real -- you don't know anyone in the CIA, and if you did, he or she probably wouldn't tell you anything like military or governmental secrets, as they keep those under duress of threatened disappearance or death. However, even if you did know someone from the CIA, and they did tell you information that appearently no one else (at least, on the internet) has access to, then I find it hard to believe that you would violate his or her trust and place such information, of all places, on a social networking website for debaters and otherwise argumentative individuals. Not Wikileaks or your local newspaper, or even a blog, but here.

Moreover, this is along the same vein as the nonsense that you post about the Illuminati and such shiit.

So, really, all you're doing by concurring is robbing my post of credibility. The fact is that we likely do not know what happened on 9/11, but more than likely, it wasn't "the government," it probably wasn't "an attack," and it may not have had anything to do with explosives.

Ultimately, I can't help but assume that you're some sort of class clown -- you clearly realize that you're the resident Troll, and don't mind how derisive people remain toward you, so I figure you're probably the alt of some reg that fancies him or herself way too funny in your own right, particularly given that your activity spikes when things are most boring here and the site at large is not entangled in some general controversy. Kind of suggests that when things are more interesting, you're on your main account.

I could be wrong.

But, if I'm not, the fact that you've taken to agreeing with me lately has been given some recent interest in making fun of me. That's fine, and I don't expect everyone, or even most people, to agree with me. On the other hand, I don't appreciate it.

In any case, I must impress upon the fact that, indeed, it is most likely that no one here has access to any dependable information regarding the incident, and nor do we really know what happened. In reality, since it's so likely that no one knows what happened, and no one will for a good while (unless we really push for it, and over a decade later, clearly, not enough are interested), it's just easier to believe something pleasant, such as that it was some single boogeyman that, with no way to defend himself, announced it to the world and then played hide and go seek until our heroic government found him in the middle of a busy town chilling at his house with his family and shot him (and the rest of his family, which is somehow to no one's outrage) in the head.

I believe that you are a long winded overzealous birdbrain who also is caught up in the delusions of nothingness. You have never bore witness to anything supernatural, or associated with any persons of legitimacy.
So this is nothing more than propaganda that you are spewing.
Your personal opionins of me are irrelevent, because you are not of value in my eyes. If you were, then I would probably shoot myself for cowering to such idiotic hypocrisy.
Jessalyn
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 11:37:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 8:52:43 AM, drafterman wrote:
Was 9/11 a government conspiracy?

No. Not it was not.

At 7/29/2012 9:43:38 PM, Jessalyn wrote:
If not, how do you explain the collapse of Building 7?

Gravity.
I don't think so. There's no way it could have collapsed that perfectly and quickly unless it was rigged. Part of it was even indented on one side, yet it didn't fall toward either side. It collapsed almost perfectly.

I'm not making an open claim either way, just trying to get some discussion going on this. I'm hesitant to buy into conspiracy theories like this, but it's difficult not to when looking at the videos of how this building collapsed. Thoughts?
WARNING: Hitchslaps may become inflamed when accompanied by unceasing stupidity.
Jessalyn
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 11:40:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 8:49:58 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/29/2012 9:43:38 PM, Jessalyn wrote:
If not, how do you explain the collapse of Building 7? I'm not making an open claim either way, just trying to get some discussion going on this. I'm hesitant to buy into conspiracy theories like this, but it's difficult not to when looking at the videos of how this building collapsed. Thoughts?:

Building 7 was only a few hundred feet away from the main buildings. Falling debris that's on fire sheers part of the room, the inside of Building 7 catches fire.

Mystery solved, no conspiracy necessary, just common sense and physics.

The debris only makes it more suspicious. When you take an ax to a tree on only one side, you can expect that it will fall to that side. I know it's obviously a lot different than buildings and a rather poor analogy, but one would imagine some of the same principles should apply to just about everything.
WARNING: Hitchslaps may become inflamed when accompanied by unceasing stupidity.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 11:56:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 11:40:35 AM, Jessalyn wrote:
At 7/30/2012 8:49:58 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/29/2012 9:43:38 PM, Jessalyn wrote:
If not, how do you explain the collapse of Building 7? I'm not making an open claim either way, just trying to get some discussion going on this. I'm hesitant to buy into conspiracy theories like this, but it's difficult not to when looking at the videos of how this building collapsed. Thoughts?:

Building 7 was only a few hundred feet away from the main buildings. Falling debris that's on fire sheers part of the room, the inside of Building 7 catches fire.

Mystery solved, no conspiracy necessary, just common sense and physics.

The debris only makes it more suspicious. When you take an ax to a tree on only one side, you can expect that it will fall to that side. I know it's obviously a lot different than buildings and a rather poor analogy, but one would imagine some of the same principles should apply to just about everything.

Or, as I mentioned before, the fact that it was separated from the towers by a whole other building in the complex that did not collapse.

Or, the fact that it was across the street, whereas buildings directly across the street from the twins, containing people that could once see the TT from their gratuitous office windows every day until the incident, were nearly unaffected.

That curious. Anyone have any Secret Squirrel explanations for that?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 12:00:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 11:37:04 AM, Jessalyn wrote:
At 7/30/2012 8:52:43 AM, drafterman wrote:
Was 9/11 a government conspiracy?

No. Not it was not.

At 7/29/2012 9:43:38 PM, Jessalyn wrote:
If not, how do you explain the collapse of Building 7?

Gravity.
I don't think so. There's no way it could have collapsed that perfectly and quickly unless it was rigged. Part of it was even indented on one side, yet it didn't fall toward either side. It collapsed almost perfectly.

What is your basis for comparison?


I'm not making an open claim either way, just trying to get some discussion going on this. I'm hesitant to buy into conspiracy theories like this, but it's difficult not to when looking at the videos of how this building collapsed. Thoughts?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 12:03:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ren on Inferno: "So, really, all you're doing by concurring is robbing my post of credibility."

And the whole congregation loudly, exclaimed, "AMEN."
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 12:04:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 11:40:35 AM, Jessalyn wrote:
At 7/30/2012 8:49:58 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/29/2012 9:43:38 PM, Jessalyn wrote:
If not, how do you explain the collapse of Building 7? I'm not making an open claim either way, just trying to get some discussion going on this. I'm hesitant to buy into conspiracy theories like this, but it's difficult not to when looking at the videos of how this building collapsed. Thoughts?:

Building 7 was only a few hundred feet away from the main buildings. Falling debris that's on fire sheers part of the room, the inside of Building 7 catches fire.

Mystery solved, no conspiracy necessary, just common sense and physics.

The debris only makes it more suspicious. When you take an ax to a tree on only one side, you can expect that it will fall to that side. I know it's obviously a lot different than buildings and a rather poor analogy, but one would imagine some of the same principles should apply to just about everything.

Why? Buildings are mostly hollow while trees are solid. So obviously the physics should result in different behavior. In any event, you shouldn't place too many guarantees are a tree falling in any specific way. Not unless you enjoy being crushed.

There are many factors to consider, since trees don't necessarily grow straight or have branches that are evenly distributed. That's why, if you want to be safe, not only do you cut the tree on the side you wish it to fall, but you tie ropes on that side to pull and ensure it falls that way.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 12:07:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 9:43:38 PM, Jessalyn wrote:
If not, how do you explain the collapse of Building 7? I'm not making an open claim either way, just trying to get some discussion going on this. I'm hesitant to buy into conspiracy theories like this, but it's difficult not to when looking at the videos of how this building collapsed. Thoughts?

The collapse of Building 7 was caused by a controlled demolition.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 12:08:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 12:03:34 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Ren on Inferno: "So, really, all you're doing by concurring is robbing my post of credibility."

And the whole congregation loudly, exclaimed, "AMEN."

Another weak response..........
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 12:08:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Building 7 was only a few hundred feet away from the main buildings. Falling debris that's on fire sheers part of the room, the inside of Building 7 catches fire.

Mystery solved, no conspiracy necessary, just common sense and physics.

The debris only makes it more suspicious. When you take an ax to a tree on only one side, you can expect that it will fall to that side. I know it's obviously a lot different than buildings and a rather poor analogy, but one would imagine some of the same principles should apply to just about everything.:

The other alternative is hundreds of agents of the government for weeks wired the buildings without alerting anyone, then blows it up.

Which one has Ockham's Razor on its side?

Every reputable engineer in the nation agrees that the simplest explanation, and the one that stands up to scrutiny and fact, is the real answer.

Beyond the argument," I don't know, it just fell WEIRD," what indisputable evidence to the contrary belies the official explanation?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Jessalyn
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 1:18:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 12:08:43 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Building 7 was only a few hundred feet away from the main buildings. Falling debris that's on fire sheers part of the room, the inside of Building 7 catches fire.

Mystery solved, no conspiracy necessary, just common sense and physics.

The debris only makes it more suspicious. When you take an ax to a tree on only one side, you can expect that it will fall to that side. I know it's obviously a lot different than buildings and a rather poor analogy, but one would imagine some of the same principles should apply to just about everything.:

The other alternative is hundreds of agents of the government for weeks wired the buildings without alerting anyone, then blows it up.

Which one has Ockham's Razor on its side?

Every reputable engineer in the nation agrees that the simplest explanation, and the one that stands up to scrutiny and fact, is the real answer.

Beyond the argument," I don't know, it just fell WEIRD," what indisputable evidence to the contrary belies the official explanation?

I have no opinion either way. I would lean toward the assumption that there's a logical explanation rather than resort to conspiracy theories, but then again I wouldn't put it past our government to to something like that.
My point is that I don't know. That's why I made no claims either way and left it up for discussion.
WARNING: Hitchslaps may become inflamed when accompanied by unceasing stupidity.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 1:50:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 12:08:43 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Building 7 was only a few hundred feet away from the main buildings. Falling debris that's on fire sheers part of the room, the inside of Building 7 catches fire.

Mystery solved, no conspiracy necessary, just common sense and physics.

The debris only makes it more suspicious. When you take an ax to a tree on only one side, you can expect that it will fall to that side. I know it's obviously a lot different than buildings and a rather poor analogy, but one would imagine some of the same principles should apply to just about everything.:

The other alternative is hundreds of agents of the government for weeks wired the buildings without alerting anyone, then blows it up.

Which one has Ockham's Razor on its side?

Every reputable engineer in the nation agrees that the simplest explanation, and the one that stands up to scrutiny and fact, is the real answer.

Beyond the argument," I don't know, it just fell WEIRD," what indisputable evidence to the contrary belies the official explanation?

You really don't think that my contentions are at least worthy of question? I mean, two buildings fall because a plane hit them, then hours later, an untouched building across the street separated by another (rather large) building falls in the exact same fashion, and that's completely understadable based on "debris and fire"?

Seriously, now?

And, "every engineer in the nation" does not agree with "the most simplest explanation" (which is anything but simple).

It was engineers and physicists that first brought any real contentions, such as the fact that it takes much hotter fires to melt a building's steel infrastructure than what can be produced by jetfuel, which doesn't even get hot enough to melt the aluminum infrastructure of an airplane. :\
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 1:56:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
...or that a molten infrastructure would cause the buildings to buckle and fall sideways... or, that jetfueld is more likely to explode than simply catch fire... or, that the jetfuel would have caught fire immediately, and would have rained fire in torrents throughout the building, which it did not... or, that there was supposedly a training going on for the military's specially trained air fighters that directly mirrored the events happening (which was planned well before the incident) effectively preventing them from doing anything about it... or, that the pentagon didn't collapse like the rest of them when it was hit, or even caught fire the way the rest of them did... or, that there was a play-by-play of an airplane approaching the pentagon, but no one did anything about it... or, that our government has anti-aircraft missles that can take out an inland airplane in a matter of seconds (all planes are GPS linked, you can rest assured that ground control was tracking them), but even as people watched both airplanes approach in live time on the news and filmed it on their cellphones, no one did anything but watch...

...yeah. Lol, I understand, though. The current explanation is simply a lot prettier, and if we've been lied to, even if we find out conclusively, there's nothing we can do about it.
Jessalyn
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 2:25:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 1:56:36 PM, Ren wrote:
...or that a molten infrastructure would cause the buildings to buckle and fall sideways... or, that jetfueld is more likely to explode than simply catch fire... or, that the jetfuel would have caught fire immediately, and would have rained fire in torrents throughout the building, which it did not... or, that there was supposedly a training going on for the military's specially trained air fighters that directly mirrored the events happening (which was planned well before the incident) effectively preventing them from doing anything about it... or, that the pentagon didn't collapse like the rest of them when it was hit, or even caught fire the way the rest of them did... or, that there was a play-by-play of an airplane approaching the pentagon, but no one did anything about it... or, that our government has anti-aircraft missles that can take out an inland airplane in a matter of seconds (all planes are GPS linked, you can rest assured that ground control was tracking them), but even as people watched both airplanes approach in live time on the news and filmed it on their cellphones, no one did anything but watch...

...yeah. Lol, I understand, though. The current explanation is simply a lot prettier, and if we've been lied to, even if we find out conclusively, there's nothing we can do about it.

Like I said...I wouldn't put it past our government. What a convenient way to further justify the War on Terror, after all?
Still, I can't make claims either way, as I'm far from knowledgeable when it comes to the structure of buildings and how they're supposed to collapse.

Just out of curiosity, what do you believe happened? Do you believe the government rigged it?
WARNING: Hitchslaps may become inflamed when accompanied by unceasing stupidity.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 2:25:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Guys....let's say the building was a controlled demolition. That means there was some dude sitting around with binoculars waiting for the plane to hit before setting off the charge.

How fvcking stupid would this man have to be if he watches the planes hit one building, and after a pause blows up a building that, for all intents and purposes, seem unrelated?
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2012 2:27:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/30/2012 2:25:42 PM, Wnope wrote:
Guys....let's say the building was a controlled demolition. That means there was some dude sitting around with binoculars waiting for the plane to hit before setting off the charge.

How fvcking stupid would this man have to be if he watches the planes hit one building, and after a pause blows up a building that, for all intents and purposes, seem unrelated?

My opinion of you is beginning to improve.