9/11 loose change.

Kel Varnsen · March 2010

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

You are 100% right in that no on can prove for sure the gov't was involved but similarily you can't prove that they weren't ... i struggle to see why you're on this thread ... if you aren't going to debate specific theories - why continue to try and discredit people based on semantics?

See that kind of reasoning to me, sounds like what creationists use to try and prove that evolution didn't happen. Instead of looking at the all the facts and trying to figure out logically what happened, it seems like conspiracy theorists decide how things went down, and the cherry pick the data that supports their claim and focus on that, and then either try to ignore or discredit any data that hurts the outcome that they want to believe.

+1

Also, the more I think about the conspiracy theorists claim about the towers falling at a particular speed or near free fall, it has become more ridiculous to think that explosives were the only way to achieve this. That would suggest that enough explosives were planted to blow out EVERY SINGLE FLOOR. and that these explosives were planted within the proximity to the laod baering supports to eliminate the chance at ANY resistance on over 100 floors. That's A LOT of explosives. In addition, I guess each of the ONE HUNDRED floors would have been wired to explode an instant before the one below it. That's one interesting daisy-chain of events.

Not only that but if the towers were loaded with explosives what was the contingency plans if the hijackers didn’t make it on the planes or if they missed or just grazed the towers? Or if the passengers had fought back against the hijackers. Would they have just left the explosives in place or detonated them anyways? It seems strange that with such a huge conspiracy that was so successful that no one has ever come forward, would leave a huge part of it open like that to the point where if the hijackers were detained at security, or missed their flight, or if a passenger decided to fight back then the whole plan would have failed.

ryanevolution · March 2010

"In a hundred years of tall city buildings, this kind of collapse has never happened before. Never. It was not predicted by any of the experts involved when the WTC towers were built. But now that it has happened, everybody understands it perfectly and nobody is surprised."
http://911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_1.htm

ryanevolution · March 2010

And also, I don't know where the phrase "truthers" comes from. But it sounds ignorant. And more than that what does it make you, the opposition of the "truthers", yes, the "liars".

polaris_x · March 2010

FiveB247x wrote:

Silly me bases my beliefs off of factual information... my bad.

Also, I find it rather funny than many of you claim to be seeking truth and spreading the gospel on this matter, yet don't really care as much about the details and facts as much as just who you blame and hold responsible.

Lastly, I believe in the truth in all matters and have no vested interest in hiding anything otherwise. Seems to me that many on this topic seem to put the cart ahead of the horse instead.

what details do you speak of? ... all you've done on this forum is marginalize based on some belief that only the facts you believe in are relevant ... the fact is lee harvey oswald was implicated in the assassination of jfk by the warren commission - are all the people who think otherwise as out to lunch?

FiveB247x · March 2010

All I've done is discuss facts and truth... everyone who's leaving links and similar has done nothing but provide half-truthes and biased insinuations on what they think occurred, but have no real proof or detail of such. So what are the points to my posts - truth and facts. If that points to the government, then so be it, if it points to the Bin laden, then so be it. This is not your and others agenda... you have leaped to conclusions and guilt. Not a very just thing to do for a group seeking justice and truth huh? Also, repetition does not make a statement any more truthful, but some of you just repeat the same stuff regardless of what information comes out or counter-arguments. As some one else pointed out, it becomes nothing more than the god existence argument. You and others have your verdict, you have your answer, so why even discuss it? You're not seeking fact, truth or information... you're minds are final and made up. I sit here admitting I have my opinion but the facts will sway me one way or the other.

polaris_x wrote:

what details do you speak of? ... all you've done on this forum is marginalize based on some belief that only the facts you believe in are relevant ... the fact is lee harvey oswald was implicated in the assassination of jfk by the warren commission - are all the people who think otherwise as out to lunch?

polaris_x · March 2010

FiveB247x wrote:

All I've done is discuss facts and truth... everyone who's leaving links and similar has done nothing but provide half-truthes and biased insinuations on what they think occurred, but have no real proof or detail of such. So what are the points to my posts - truth and facts. If that points to the government, then so be it, if it points to the Bin laden, then so be it. This is not your and others agenda... you have leaped to conclusions and guilt. Not a very just thing to do for a group seeking justice and truth huh? Also, repetition does not make a statement any more truthful, but some of you just repeat the same stuff regardless of what information comes out or counter-arguments. As some one else pointed out, it becomes nothing more than the god existence argument. You and others have your verdict, you have your answer, so why even discuss it? You're not seeking fact, truth or information... you're minds are final and made up. I sit here admitting I have my opinion but the facts will sway me one way or the other.

my mind isn't final ... the fact you think that is another indication that you aren't really interested in listening ...

again - what of jfk? ... fact is oswald was implicated ... is everyone who believes otherwise out to lunch?

FiveB247x · March 2010

Listening to what, I've heard and read all the claims and albeit there's plenty of unknowns, most of the alleged details which these conspiracy theorists point too is hearsay, insinuation and half-truths. So when I say this, you say I'm closed off to listening? Should we hold our reservation and belief that the world is round because a few people want to still believe it's flat? As I mentioned earlier, you can't disprove my comment that Bigfoot did 9-11 either - so should we give that some relevance of legitimacy as well?

Lastly, and this is where I have an honest issue with the whole 9-11 inside job - it is not based upon facts but when you ask the people who believe this, they don't discuss the issue at hand... cause there's no real facts backing it up. So question and mention JFK or OK City or whatever other conspiracy theory to backup the 9-11 conspiracy, but in the end of the day, you have no answer or data actually explaining or showing it as truth.

polaris_x wrote:

my mind isn't final ... the fact you think that is another indication that you aren't really interested in listening ...

again - what of jfk? ... fact is oswald was implicated ... is everyone who believes otherwise out to lunch?

polaris_x · March 2010

FiveB247x wrote:

Listening to what, I've heard and read all the claims and albeit there's plenty of unknowns, most of the alleged details which these conspiracy theorists point too is hearsay, insinuation and half-truths. So when I say this, you say I'm closed off to listening? Should we hold our reservation and belief that the world is round because a few people want to still believe it's flat? As I mentioned earlier, you can't disprove my comment that Bigfoot did 9-11 either - so should we give that some relevance of legitimacy as well?

Lastly, and this is where I have an honest issue with the whole 9-11 inside job - it is not based upon facts but when you ask the people who believe this, they don't discuss the issue at hand... cause there's no real facts backing it up. So question and mention JFK or OK City or whatever other conspiracy theory to backup the 9-11 conspiracy, but in the end of the day, you have no answer or data actually explaining or showing it as truth.

i say you aren't listening because nowhere do i say it's an absolute ... yet you peg everyone as such ...

i asked a simple question with regards to jfk - one you aren't willing to answer ... i wonder why that is? ... i would never use jfk to prove 9/11 ... all i'm getting at is you are so hell bent on "facts" ... so, the official commission said bin laded orchestrated 9/11 ... the warren commission said lee harvey oswald ... again - are those that believe jfk's assassination was a conspiracy nut jobs?

ryanevolution · March 2010

"magic bullet theory" = fire caused collapse theory. Both equal total bullshit and defy and scientific explanation.

FiveB247x · March 2010

To say Bin Laden and company did it and there are no unanswered questions or issue relating too it is an absolute conclusion. To say there is conspiracy theory in which the government had their hand in or enabled 9-11 is an absolute conclusion. Pretty much anything in between could be swayed upon further details... and most of the people posting in this thread backing an inside job are making absolute conclusions... no if's, ands or buts about it.

As per the JFK issue, I think every issue is different and has varying circumstances. I've read, seen and heard lots on this topic and honestly do not know what to believe.

Ironically and speaking of conspiracy theories (not to change the subject), I watched a few shows the other day in regards to the Apollo Lunar landing on the moon in 69. According to a recent study/poll, 20% of Americans believe this didn't actually happen and it was a fabrication/filmed in tv studio. It has been pretty much proven without a shadow of a doubt that the conspiracy theorists are completely wrong on this matter. Are we wrong to say they're incorrect or misguided or going by half-truths? At what point is it fair/safe or just to dismiss incorrect information and people's opinions based on wrong information or nonfactual data?

polaris_x wrote:

i say you aren't listening because nowhere do i say it's an absolute ... yet you peg everyone as such ...

i asked a simple question with regards to jfk - one you aren't willing to answer ... i wonder why that is? ... i would never use jfk to prove 9/11 ... all i'm getting at is you are so hell bent on "facts" ... so, the official commission said bin laded orchestrated 9/11 ... the warren commission said lee harvey oswald ... again - are those that believe jfk's assassination was a conspiracy nut jobs?

CantKeepMeHere · March 2010

Right now it is a "watch instantly" on Netflix

polaris_x · March 2010

FiveB247x wrote:

To say Bin Laden and company did it and there are no unanswered questions or issue relating too it is an absolute conclusion. To say there is conspiracy theory in which the government had their hand in or enabled 9-11 is an absolute conclusion. Pretty much anything in between could be swayed upon further details... and most of the people posting in this thread backing an inside job are making absolute conclusions... no if's, ands or buts about it.

As per the JFK issue, I think every issue is different and has varying circumstances. I've read, seen and heard lots on this topic and honestly do not know what to believe.

Ironically and speaking of conspiracy theories (not to change the subject), I watched a few shows the other day in regards to the Apollo Lunar landing on the moon in 69. According to a recent study/poll, 20% of Americans believe this didn't actually happen and it was a fabrication/filmed in tv studio. It has been pretty much proven without a shadow of a doubt that the conspiracy theorists are completely wrong on this matter. Are we wrong to say they're incorrect or misguided or going by half-truths? At what point is it fair/safe or just to dismiss incorrect information and people's opinions based on wrong information or nonfactual data?

so ... you are saying then that there was absolutely no gov't conspiracy?

all these issues are indeed different but it appears the rigidity by which you seem to have for those who believe in a conspiracy fluctuates based on the issue and your own beliefs ...

FiveB247x · March 2010

At best case scenario all we can account for right now is the government not being forthright in providing all the details of the events of that day. In terms of a government conspiracy which enabled or participated in the events, we have nothing on other than accusations and insinuations.

And everyone's beliefs sway in terms of what they deem possible, likely, legitimate or even factual. I have an open door to whatever the facts or details which are stated... have said that from the beginning. You seem to discredit that because I don't adhere to yours or ryan's comments, opinions or postings.

polaris_x wrote:

so ... you are saying then that there was absolutely no gov't conspiracy?

all these issues are indeed different but it appears the rigidity by which you seem to have for those who believe in a conspiracy fluctuates based on the issue and your own beliefs ...

polaris_x · March 2010

FiveB247x wrote:

At best case scenario all we can account for right now is the government not being forthright in providing all the details of the events of that day. In terms of a government conspiracy which enabled or participated in the events, we have nothing on other than accusations and insinuations.

And everyone's beliefs sway in terms of what they deem possible, likely, legitimate or even factual. I have an open door to whatever the facts or details which are stated... have said that from the beginning. You seem to discredit that because I don't adhere to yours or ryan's comments, opinions or postings.

i'm not the one marginalizing others opinions on this matter

JonnyPistachio · March 2010

ryanevolution wrote:

"magic bullet theory" = fire caused collapse theory. Both equal total bullshit and defy and scientific explanation.

So, to satisfy the 'scientific explanation'...you are saying the only way that those towers could have collapsed at free fall speed is from explosives, right? Do you agree that this would mean that enough explosives would have to be put on every single floor and had to have completely demolished/obliterated the whole structure of every single floor?
-and-
Scientifically, (in order to 'trick' all the witnesses into believing that it wasnt demolished on purpose) each floor would have to explode in a domino effect starting from the top, each descending floor detonating split seconds apart.

Do you agree with that?

Your freefall collapse argument means Nothing scientifically.

FiveB247x · March 2010

Well this goes back to my point about the Lunar Landing... when is it acceptable to discount information when we know it is incorrect? Or even to put it into perspective as another poster has done with the free-fall scenario or even the fact that even if it was explosives, it in no ways ties the government to being guilty? So where do you draw the line between reasonable and not or legit and not?

polaris_x wrote:

i'm not the one marginalizing others opinions on this matter

polaris_x · March 2010

FiveB247x wrote:

Well this goes back to my point about the Lunar Landing... when is it acceptable to discount information when we know it is incorrect? Or even to put it into perspective as another poster has done with the free-fall scenario or even the fact that even if it was explosives, it in no ways ties the government to being guilty? So where do you draw the line between reasonable and not or legit and not?

if there were explosives - it means that the official story now has holes - the official story put forth by the gov't ... similar to any court trial - the witness (in this case the gov't) would lose all credibility ...

as far as the line goes ... it doesn't really matter where anyone draws the line - that's my entire point ... it's completely subjective ... i just don't see how it's beneficial here ...

FiveB247x · March 2010

But here's the thing you're not accounting for - even if we give the benefit of doubt and say the government is part of some cover-up because explosives were present... it still in no way means they did it. It also still means we have no proof or data to who did do it. Either way you play out that scenario, guilt doesn't fall upon a party, it merely means we still do not know.. but conspiracy theorists make a leap here when it doesn't warrant one and we have no proof in the slightest.

polaris_x wrote:

if there were explosives - it means that the official story now has holes - the official story put forth by the gov't ... similar to any court trial - the witness (in this case the gov't) would lose all credibility ...

as far as the line goes ... it doesn't really matter where anyone draws the line - that's my entire point ... it's completely subjective ... i just don't see how it's beneficial here ...

ryanevolution · March 2010

JonnyPistachio wrote:

So, to satisfy the 'scientific explanation'...you are saying the only way that those towers could have collapsed at free fall speed is from explosives, right? Do you agree that this would mean that enough explosives would have to be put on every single floor and had to have completely demolished/obliterated the whole structure of every single floor?
-and-
Scientifically, (in order to 'trick' all the witnesses into believing that it wasnt demolished on purpose) each floor would have to explode in a domino effect starting from the top, each descending floor detonating split seconds apart.

Do you agree with that?

Your freefall collapse argument means Nothing scientifically.

That is what I am saying. Yes. There were a motherfuckin shitload of explosives laced throughout that entire building, in a controlled demolition manner, with exactly what you are saying, timing devices to daisy chain the whole explosion down. Any evidence of this? YES. How about the fact that every bit of concrete in the entire building was blown to DUST! Not rubble, dust! Like it was...exploded. :shock: And that also goes back to my original point, of it being an "inside job".

AGAIN, I never implicated "the government". That is an ignorant narrow minded view of this socio-politcal structure anyway. There is not one unified "government". There are many divided factions within its ranks, some acting with impunity, some above reproach.

ryanevolution · March 2010

The "free-fall" argument is scientific. It means exactly what you are saying. That in a controlled demolition (as we have all seen I'm sure many times before, as in 'wow, watch this building implode" or "this stadium" or whatever), all floors are blown out in a timed manner. This provides a zero resistance, and allows the floors to fall into themselves and into the basement without damaging adjacent buildings. This is what is plain to the naked eye when watching the collapse. Using science, which PROVES that if the top floor fell from its height at free fall, it would hit ground level in 9.15 seconds (or VERY close to that). The buildings fell (estimates range from 9 sec - 15 sec) at near free fall speed. This means, that there MUST have been a controlled demolition model in effect for the WTC towers.

9/11 loose change.

Comments

Categories