Why 9.11 Conspiracy Theories are wrong

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobbyMeade. Show BobbyMeade's posts

    Re: Why 9.11 Conspiracy Theories are wrong

    In Response to Re: Why 9.11 Conspiracy Theories are wrong:
    In Response to Re: Why 9.11 Conspiracy Theories are wrong : I am pretty sure a runway isn't as wide as one of the towers, yet amazingly, pilots manage to land on them thousands of times a day,  Go figure?  
    Posted by Encinitas


    Go find out who took that aerial shot of one of the planes hitting the towers. I bet that was taken from one of GHW Bush's Eagle stealth helicoptors. It seems like it was taken from less than a mile away.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from porcupinepatriot22. Show porcupinepatriot22's posts

    Re: Why 9.11 Conspiracy Theories are wrong

    One more question on 9/11.  qui bono?  Was it the terrorists?  Or was it a victory for fear and control?  Has that fear been exploited and that control been used?  People jumping to their deaths because no other choice than be burned alive.  Giant buildings turn into a fine powder chasing NY'ers running for their lives.  Watching the Pentagon in flames.  It wasn't about the 3,000+ killed, it was the images playing on the TV over and over.  Who benefited?  Like Smedly Butler said war is a racket and it gave the military industrial complex two.  Giant war profits, the ability to invade and set up shop in two middle eastern countries (surrounding Iran), the Patriot Act, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act, etc.  If they will send us into Iraq and kill over 1,000,000 civilians do you really think they care about you and your family? 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from PragmaticAmerican. Show PragmaticAmerican's posts

    Re: Why 9.11 Conspiracy Theories are wrong

    Ah, this nonsense again.

    Look, there's a wealth of evidence that proves - assuming you have a clue about science and engineering, and aren't some drooling narcoleptic - that there is no conspiracy.

    1.  The buildings were prepped for demolition.

    Wrong.  The next largest building in the US ever demolished was the former Hudson department store in Detroit - 33 stories plus basements, towers, etc., with a footprint of about a city block.  It took multiple 21 man crews on the order of three months to remove all manners of interior fixings, supports, other supports have to be weakened deliberately via cutting torch, and it took over 14,000 feet of det. cord alone.

    http://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hudson-department-store

    So somehow Bush and his devious crew managed to prep two buildings each well over twice the size of the Hudson building surrepticiously, and with no one noticing.  Yeah, OK, whatever you say.

    2.  The buildings shouldn't have come down like that (the "free fall myth").

    Buildings are made to do certain things, not everything.  They are carefully ctrafted to balance enormous loads, with the force transferred in certain directions and along certain members and structures.  The effect of the stories above the impact zone coming down onto the lower floors will completely overcome any ability of the structure to hold.  This is such simple engineering, it's freaking appalling people disregard this.

    3.  Thermite detected.

    Bullcrap.

    4.  Steel won't melt at those temperatures.

    Simple engineering.  They don't have to melt, merely soften the steel enough to lower it's ability to handle loads (structural integrity and load-bearing).  And hey, whattaya know...there was just a building somewhere here in the US that had a light plane fly into it (accident)...and the heat of a freaking Piper Cub burning did exactly the same thing, and brought down the entire damned building.

    5.  Building 7 was prepped for demolition, which was took it down.

    Debris from both towers rained down onto this structure.  Also, the force of each building coming down just a few thousand feet away will quite literally be similar to an earthquake - twice.  I rather doubt building 7 was designed with handling two back-to-back earth shocks like that.

    6.  Impossible to fly planes into structures at those speeds.

    Again, horsecrap.  I'm former Army (and I'm certain there are other Vets here), and I would frequently witness all manners of airframes being flown at speeds exceeding those of the impacting planes, doing insane things in very tight quarters.  Hell, just go to any air rally, where planes are going in and out of pylons at velocities of up to 250 mph.

    Our BDC conspiracy theorists are free to ignore everything I just wrote.  And you will, regardless.  But those are the facts, and you guys have no clue what the hell you're talking about.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from porcupinepatriot22. Show porcupinepatriot22's posts

    Re: Why 9.11 Conspiracy Theories are wrong

    In Response to Re: Why 9.11 Conspiracy Theories are wrong:
    Ah, this nonsense again. Look, there's a wealth of evidence that proves - assuming you have a clue about science and engineering, and aren't some drooling narcoleptic - that there is no conspiracy. 1.  The buildings were prepped for demolition. Wrong.  The next largest building in the US ever demolished was the former Hudson department store in Detroit - 33 stories plus basements, towers, etc., with a footprint of about a city block.  It took multiple 21 man crews on the order of three months to remove all manners of interior fixings, supports, other supports have to be weakened deliberately via cutting torch, and it took over 14,000 feet of det. cord alone. http://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hudson-department-store So somehow Bush and his devious crew managed to prep two buildings each well over twice the size of the Hudson building surrepticiously, and with no one noticing.  Yeah, OK, whatever you say. 2.  The buildings shouldn't have come down like that (the "free fall myth"). Buildings are made to do certain things, not everything.  They are carefully ctrafted to balance enormous loads, with the force transferred in certain directions and along certain members and structures.  The effect of the stories above the impact zone coming down onto the lower floors will completely overcome any ability of the structure to hold.  This is such simple engineering, it's freaking appalling people disregard this. 3.  Thermite detected. Bullcrap. 4.  Steel won't melt at those temperatures. Simple engineering.  They don't have to melt, merely soften the steel enough to lower it's ability to handle loads (structural integrity and load-bearing).  And hey, whattaya know...there was just a building somewhere here in the US that had a light plane fly into it (accident)...and the heat of a freaking Piper Cub burning did exactly the same thing, and brought down the entire damned building. 5.  Building 7 was prepped for demolition, which was took it down. Debris from both towers rained down onto this structure.  Also, the force of each building coming down just a few thousand feet away will quite literally be similar to an earthquake - twice.  I rather doubt building 7 was designed with handling two back-to-back earth shocks like that. 6.  Impossible to fly planes into structures at those speeds. Again, horsecrap.  I'm former Army (and I'm certain there are other Vets here), and I would frequently witness all manners of airframes being flown at speeds exceeding those of the impacting planes, doing insane things in very tight quarters.  Hell, just go to any air rally, where planes are going in and out of pylons at velocities of up to 250 mph. Our BDC conspiracy theorists are free to ignore everything I just wrote.  And you will, regardless.  But those are the facts, and you guys have no clue what the hell you're talking about.
    Posted by PragmaticAmerican


    "And hey, whattaya know...there was just a building somewhere here in the US that had a light plane fly into it (accident)...and the heat of a freaking Piper Cub burning did exactly the same thing, and brought down the entire damned building".  

    Does this building have a name?  Where is it and how does it compare to the Towers? 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from PragmaticAmerican. Show PragmaticAmerican's posts

    Re: Why 9.11 Conspiracy Theories are wrong

    Somewhere here in the US recently.  I don't recollect where precisely, but watched it on the news.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from porcupinepatriot22. Show porcupinepatriot22's posts

    Re: Why 9.11 Conspiracy Theories are wrong

    In Response to Re: Why 9.11 Conspiracy Theories are wrong:
    Somewhere here in the US recently.  I don't recollect where precisely, but watched it on the news.
    Posted by PragmaticAmerican


    And the building collapsed with all the columns failing simultaneously and fell to the ground?  I must have missed it.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Why 9.11 Conspiracy Theories are wrong

    In Response to Re: Why 9.11 Conspiracy Theories are wrong:
    One more question on 9/11.  qui bono?  Was it the terrorists?  Or was it a victory for fear and control?  Has that fear been exploited and that control been used?  People jumping to their deaths because no other choice than be burned alive.  Giant buildings turn into a fine powder chasing NY'ers running for their lives.  Watching the Pentagon in flames.  It wasn't about the 3,000+ killed, it was the images playing on the TV over and over.  Who benefited?  Like Smedly Butler said war is a racket and it gave the military industrial complex two.  Giant war profits, the ability to invade and set up shop in two middle eastern countries (surrounding Iran), the Patriot Act, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act, etc.  If they will send us into Iraq and kill over 1,000,000 civilians do you really think they care about you and your family? 
    Posted by porcupinepatriot22


    Fairly obviously Al Queda had a lot to gain from this event.  They are bent on taking down the West through any means possible as part of a preverted sense of Islamic Jihad.  The fact that their operatives were connected to the event supports this view.  The fact that a man confessed in Federal Court to being part of the conspiracy also supports this view.  The fact that Al Queda is linked to other similar terrorist events over the years in numerous other countries further supports this view. Besides mindless musings, do you have anything to support your view that this event was anything other than an attack by an outside terrorist group? 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from PragmaticAmerican. Show PragmaticAmerican's posts

    Re: Why 9.11 Conspiracy Theories are wrong

    In Response to Re: Why 9.11 Conspiracy Theories are wrong:
    In Response to Re: Why 9.11 Conspiracy Theories are wrong : And the building collapsed with all the columns failing simultaneously and fell to the ground?  I must have missed it.
    Posted by porcupinepatriot22


    This is always freaking dismaying: seeing a news report and then not being able to find any reference to it.  The damn story was on Fox News one evening, and I find no reference to it now.  Grrrr.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share