Don't get me wrong, I love a good conspiracy theory. They're hilarious. And however you slice it, the US was in some way culpable for 9/11; if not directly, then by their government's actions in previous decades. Unfortunately, society will (from time to time) wear the consequences of previous generations behaviour. It's not nice, it's not even fair, but it happens.
Something that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt was that the buildings came down because planes hit them. Every theory concerning 'controlled demolition', 'explosive charges', or (my personal favourite) 'homeless people that were used as jumpers' has been solidly debunked. Anyone still forwarding these theories is a moron. Same goes for the Pentagon. These assholes who go "where is the plane" and "where are the bodies" clearly weren't looking very hard. That plane left one hell of a mess. Don't take my word for it. Do some reading that relates to a primary source, and physical evidence, and not some pimply loser with a copy of Windows Movie Maker.
I wish more people would show proper respect to the scientific method.
Mercuryking · Member since
Zebonka12 wrote: "i can share some links if you like "
Don't get me wrong, I love a good conspiracy theory. They're hilarious. And however you slice it, the US was in some way culpable for 9/11; if not directly, then by their government's actions in previous decades. Unfortunately, society will (from time to time) wear the consequences of previous generations behaviour. It's not nice, it's not even fair, but it happens.
Something that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt was that the buildings came down because planes hit them. Every theory concerning 'controlled demolition', 'explosive charges', or (my personal favourite) 'homeless people that were used as jumpers' has been solidly debunked. Anyone still forwarding these theories is a moron. Same goes for the Pentagon. These assholes who go "where is the plane" and "where are the bodies" clearly weren't looking very hard. That plane left one hell of a mess. Don't take my word for it. Do some reading that relates to a primary source, and physical evidence, and not some pimply loser with a copy of Windows Movie Maker.
I wish more people would show proper respect to the scientific method.
Actually you're wrong , its not at all proven that the planes took the buildings down , in fact its not even possible for jet fuel to melt down the steel. If you think about it , do you really think that a building which most of it (like 80%) were undamaged could fall at almost freefall speed? You would think that there would be SOME resistance from all the floors(the mass) that was unharmed , yet it falls down like butter with no resistance , COMPLETLY impossible. It doesnt make sense at all... So no Zebonka thats not AT ALL proven beyond any shadows of doubt, on the contrary...
And for the pentagon thing , thats BS too , i mean first of all out like 500 cameras out there only 4 snapshots were released/shot and still on those 4 images nothing of plane is visable... neither was there any plane parts around the place it "crashed". Also its almost impossible to fly down an airplane like that to the height of the pentagon so you're telling me that som arab could do that? No again its the government hitting it with some form of missile or something like that..
And im not into this conspiracy things for fun , im in it FOR JUSTICE, it happens to be that most of these conspiracies are true. If people would like these conspiracies to end , then the solution is very simple... IT only acquires for these scumbag politicians to just answer some of these questions instead of ALWAYS running away when somebody asks these questions (its on youtube to see for urself)
Its really that simple and then there would be no more conspiracies but it seems like they are hiding the truth and therefore flee when they get confronted.
The Real Wizard · Member since
Mercury SingerOfLife wrote:
"its not even possible for jet fuel to melt down the steel. If you think about it , do you really think that a building which most of it (like 80%) were undamaged could fall at almost freefall speed? You would think that there would be SOME resistance from all the floors(the mass) that was unharmed , yet it falls down like butter with no resistance , COMPLETLY impossible."
For once I completely agree with this guy. The idea that airplanes caused the twin towers to fall violates several laws of physics. The US is the only developed nation in the world where the overall electorate is stupid enough to actually believe otherwise.
Mercuryking · Member since
Sir GH wrote: Mercury SingerOfLife wrote:
"its not even possible for jet fuel to melt down the steel. If you think about it , do you really think that a building which most of it (like 80%) were undamaged could fall at almost freefall speed? You would think that there would be SOME resistance from all the floors(the mass) that was unharmed , yet it falls down like butter with no resistance , COMPLETLY impossible."
For once I completely agree with this guy. The idea that airplanes caused the twin towers to fall violates several laws of physics. The US is the only developed nation in the world where the overall electorate is stupid enough to actually believe otherwise.
Glad to see that you're not stupid as most of the people believing the official story . Its ridiculous that people bought that....
john bodega · Member since
"The idea that airplanes caused the twin towers to fall violates several laws of physics"
If you can name one of them, I'll name my firstborn after you.
Zebonka: Im very dissapointed in you , really... You really bought that idea about jet fuel running down elevators and melting the steel.... and that being FACT???
You really start to sound like my brother MAX.....
Whats so funny about those "facts" is that they are from FEMA that is the government haha.........................................
Tranqvillia · Member since
just live your life, the elite always owned the people
inu-liger · Member since
Can we get back on original topic please, for fuck sakes
john bodega · Member since
"You really bought that idea about jet fuel running down elevators and melting the steel"
No, I didn't. The steel was not (strictly speaking) 'melted' Are you actually this retarded, or is it an act you put on for bus fare? If you can't read a full explanation as to what happened to the steel, then what business do you have addressing anyone on the topic?
john bodega · Member since
"just live your life, the elite always owned the people"
Now HERE is one I can agree with!
Mercuryking · Member since
Zebonka12 wrote: "You really bought that idea about jet fuel running down elevators and melting the steel"
No, I didn't. The steel was not (strictly speaking) 'melted' Are you actually this retarded, or is it an act you put on for bus fare? If you can't read a full explanation as to what happened to the steel, then what business do you have addressing anyone on the topic?
Cause i stopped reading it for these reasons: 1st: That they say that its all FACT, 2nd: The whole fuel thing spreading everywhere and material such as curtains and office stuff was the cause of an giant super building to fall down like butter and FINALLY number 3: This is the sole reason why i stopped reading : Building 7 now all of a sudden had some damage to its bottom part from nowhere , now how did that happen? And even though the owner spilled the beanes, right here in this link , it still must be wrong for they had all the FACTS.......
This right here below is revealing that they took it down by controlled demolition THEREFORE COMPLETLY debunking that whole website of yours..... why? Cause apperently they , FEMA or whoever they are didnt know about larry silverstein , the owner ordering to pull the building down with explosives that by the way take weeks to rig into a building..........................................................................................................ENOUGH said
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
Tranqvillia · Member since
this whole debate is ridiculous, how the buildings fell down isnt important in the big picture, what is important is HOW those planes even got the OPPORTUNITY to hit those buildings when USA's security is so strong that should have NOT been possible, they LET it happen for obvious reasons.
john bodega · Member since
"The whole fuel thing spreading everywhere and material such as curtains and office stuff was the cause of an giant super building to fall down like butter"
Office materials are quite combustible. If you'd kept reading, you would've gotten to know that some of them would've gotten the fire considerably hotter than just the jet fuel alone - up to 1800F. Now, steel does not "melt" at this temperature, but it doesn't have to. At 1800F, it has something like 10 percent of its usual strength. Are you at all aware of what is going to happen when 20 storeys of a skyscraper is being supported by steel that is (in parts) at only 10 percent of its usual load carrying ability? You stopped reading 'just because it kept saying Fact'? Could you be a bigger imbecile if you tried?
" This is the sole reason why i stopped reading : Building 7 now all of a sudden had some damage to its bottom part from nowhere , now how did that happen?"
No. It didn't 'suddenly' get damage 'from nowhere'. It is well documented that a large part of the face on one side was knocked out and that a strong fire was burning in the building (which itself was accelerated by DIESEL which was stored inside the building for reasons that would be obvious if you knew how to read). WTC 7 also wasn't your typical building design - again, you could read this for yourself but you stopped because you didn't like being told that you were wrong and that these were facts. This is purely a matter of architecture - you should acquaint yourself with terms like 'stress', 'load', things like that.
"This right here below is revealing that they took it down by controlled demolition THEREFORE COMPLETLY debunking that whole website of yours"
Hmmm. I watched carefully and at no point did he say "we made the decision to destroy the building". He is referring to pulling away from the building, knowing that it was beyond help. "We made the decision to pull it" =/= someone saying "we made the decision to blow it up". You wouldn't understand this because English is not your first language and you're not acquainted with the bizarre phrases we use sometimes (especially in the land of America - a people so inept, that they ACTUALLY say 'could care less' instead of 'couldn't care less', which is the correct expression).
The BBC reporter doing an early report on WTC7 is also quite explainable. There are rational reasons for the reporters to have thought that WTC7 had already come down. The other World Trade Center buildings were not nearly as famous as the Twin Towers. It's likely that the news teams weren't even sure what building they were talking about, and they had been told all afternoon that the building was also going to come down (because of the damage and fire that you just ignored in an article with 300 professional sources - primary sources, physical evidence, video footage, photography, testimony from experts who know a shitload more about architecture than you do). They jumped the gun - news teams have a long, long precedent for doing this. Many inaccurate reports were made that day. This happens on busy days when news services get information from a lot of places without verification.
As important as a witness statement can be, you can't always take them literally. When people watched the Titanic sink, they reckoned it sounded like 'thunder' or 'a gun going off'. I suppose to Max and Amir, this means that there was a nearby thunderstorm, or gunplay was taking place on the deck of the sinking ship. Actually, the ship didn't sound like thunder or a gun going off - it sounded like a ship breaking up, but the people listening didn't have a proper frame of reference because they'd never heard a 45000 ton ship break in half. It is no different on 9/11. People said a lot of things that day that, in hindsight, could've been worded better. Because (funny enough) people aren't used to things like this happening. I think it's almost tragic that people like you seize upon this poorly chosen words and try to build a story out of it.
This is not a reliable way to get to the truth of things. Each of the theories you've mentioned has been approached logically and debunked. I am not a person who ever thinks that one should close the book on a debate. If you have NEW information, new theories that haven't had holes poked in them, then please bring them up. I urge you to read that site again. Yes, seeing the words FACT in capitals can be a bit annoying - this is something you could possibly bring up with your brother. All the same, you shouldn't just stop reading things because they make you feel uncomfortable. In reading about 9/11, I've seen theories that the jumpers (the people falling out of the building) were actors, or vagrants, ABDUCTED to make the scene of carnage look more legitimate. Have you any remote understanding of how absolutely insane and hurtful a claim like that is? Does that bit even bother you; that it is not only complete fiction, but that it might offend people?
john bodega · Member since
"this whole debate is ridiculous, how the buildings fell down isnt important in the big picture, what is important is HOW those planes even got the OPPORTUNITY to hit those buildings when USA's security is so strong that should have NOT been possible, they LET it happen for obvious reasons."
Again, this isn't something I disagree with entirely. I have never asserted that the US government didn't know what was happening. They knew something was coming, and they didn't do enough to stop it. Maybe I'm getting bogged down in semantics here, but they didn't do enough, because 9/11 happened, and if they had done enough, then it wouldn't have. Perhaps I'm being unfair in saying that, but there you go.
