its actually pretty funny that people don't understand that metal gets softer as it gets hotter :v:
I'm so glad he did this video, considering the whole jet fuel argument assumes that metals only lose structure starting [I]exactly[/I] at its reported "melting point" when in actuality that point is when said metal is more or less liquefied.
My favorite thing to ask these people is if jet fuel can't melt a steal beam, then how can spaghetti?
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sEdHh1Xjb0[/media]
You get some pretty amusing answers from time to time.
People who don't believe this also seem to forget that the fuel didn't just teleport up there, it was brought there by a huge metallic object crashing through the wall and doing lots of damage on its own too.
What's the point of this video even? There's so much wrong with this video that 9/11 "truthers" will find a million ways to dispute it. They've even disputed straight scientific evidence
Also what's with the "For any licensing requests please contact [email]licensing@break.com[/email]" in the video description? Seems like this is a video for the internet to share around and have a laugh to earn a dollar and go viral, instead of actually trying to disprove anything
[editline]18th December 2015[/editline]
Seriously, look at the YouTube comments. It's full of 9/11 conspiracy nuts poking holes in everything. They don't believe anything other than their own rhetoric
i hope no one is serious with this argument... its just a meme at this point on youtube like the whole darude sandstorm thing
[QUOTE=Penguiin;49344972]i hope no one is serious with this argument... its just a meme at this point on youtube like the whole darude sandstorm thing[/QUOTE]
It's a meme precisely because people actually thought that the argument was valid and people rolled with it and kept making fun of it because it was fucking stupid.
This guy was obviously hired by the lezard men of the government to spread misinformation about metallurgy and the whole 9/11 hoax.
[QUOTE=Asgard;49344870]What's the point of this video even? There's so much wrong with this video that 9/11 "truthers" will find a million ways to dispute it. They've even disputed straight scientific evidence[/QUOTE]
oddly enough not all 9/11 truthers are complete nutjobs. i've seen plenty of otherwise sane people hold that opinion just because they haven't put that much (if any) thought into it
[QUOTE=Asgard;49344870]What's the point of this video even? There's so much wrong with this video that 9/11 "truthers" will find a million ways to dispute it. They've even disputed straight scientific evidence
Also what's with the "For any licensing requests please contact [email]licensing@break.com[/email]" in the video description? Seems like this is a video for the internet to share around and have a laugh to earn a dollar and go viral, instead of actually trying to disprove anything
[editline]18th December 2015[/editline]
Seriously, look at the YouTube comments. It's full of 9/11 conspiracy nuts poking holes in everything. They don't believe anything other than their own rhetoric[/QUOTE]
since it's a huge topic thing (and he's already been approached about it probably) if a news station or legit blog wants to pick it up they're legally required to sign an agreement and likely pay him for use of his video. Having that little disclaimer is explicitly there to stop exactly the whole "it's on the internet for free I can do what I want" attitude from profiting off his time and experience
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49345063]oddly enough not all 9/11 truthers are complete nutjobs. i've seen plenty of otherwise sane people hold that opinion just because they haven't put that much (if any) thought into it[/QUOTE]
If they think the US government blew up the building they're pretty nutty by my standards.
[QUOTE=Penguiin;49344972]i hope no one is serious with this argument... its just a meme at this point on youtube like the whole darude sandstorm thing[/QUOTE]
I was at an architectural convention and a group of truthers paid for a really expensive booth so they could hand out fliers and get testimonials from real structural engineers over these kind of facts. If you have a professional say "yeah steel melts at X temp and we use this type of steel" a truther can run with that as proof, without the video's whole point of how steel softens way before that point
I'm 99% sure the whole group was a family, they all had really creepy deep sunken eye sockets and mormon 'look through you' vibes. The main guy was an unmoving mute massive dude in a wheelchair with the biggest labrador help dog I've ever seen just sleeping on the side of the booth
My biggest issue with 9/11 conspiracies is it relies on our government being competent and being able to keep a secret.
Which if Watergate told us anything, isn't gonna happen.
[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;49345120]My biggest issue with 9/11 conspiracies is it relies on our government being competent and being able to keep a secret.
Which if Watergate told us anything, isn't gonna happen.[/QUOTE]
The greatest failing point in just about [I]every[/I] government conspiracy theory is that it relies on people being able to keep secrets. The New World Order, Illuminati, and other related conspiracies are prime examples.
[QUOTE=Penguiin;49344972]i hope no one is serious with this argument... its just a meme at this point on youtube like the whole darude sandstorm thing[/QUOTE]
People seem to be pretty convinced about it in the comments tho.
[QUOTE=paul simon;49345082]If they think the US government blew up the building they're pretty nutty by my standards.[/QUOTE]
idk how to explain it, i just get the feeling a big part of the population here doesn't think of 9/11 as that big of a deal? this is just anecdotal but i feel like it's somehow more accepted here, so you see more 'average' people turning to conspiracy theories rather than just complete lunatics
one of the big things people point out (literally just saw friend-of-a-friend going on about it on facebook regarding this video) is that 'building 7 fell at the same time, but wasn't hit by a plane, thus it was planned demolition'. Thing had a huge gash carved in the back when the first tower came down, long after people had been evacuated. Fires raged for hours weakening its structure, then two fuckhuge buildings came down right next to it. Between the rubble smashing against the base of the building and the quake caused by two of the biggest buildings on the planet crashing down, it's not exactly hard to solve for X
Can anyone recommend a good, may be even more basic, unbiased documentary about 9/11? I was only 7 when it happened and I still don't fully know the extent of what happened other than the main details
[QUOTE=highvoltage;49345673]Can anyone recommend a good, may be even more basic, unbiased documentary about 9/11? I was only 7 when it happened and I still don't fully know the extent of what happened other than the main details[/QUOTE]
There was a really good critique of the Zeitgeist movie that went through every detail. Cna't remember the link, but it was really thorough.
[QUOTE=highvoltage;49345673]Can anyone recommend a good, may be even more basic, unbiased documentary about 9/11? I was only 7 when it happened and I still don't fully know the extent of what happened other than the main details[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M[/media]
This one is pretty thorough.
[QUOTE=highvoltage;49345673]Can anyone recommend a good, may be even more basic, unbiased documentary about 9/11? I was only 7 when it happened and I still don't fully know the extent of what happened other than the main details[/QUOTE]
102 Minutes That Changed America is literally the best documentary on 9/11 that exists. It shows footage, news reports, recorded audio as the events unfolded and in chronological order almost 1/1 compared to the actual timespan of events. It is unbiased because it offers literally zero commentary other than what the people who were there actually saw and said as it was happening. It is harrowing. It is the closest you can get to having been there without having been there.
[video=youtube;DIWKNNer1Cc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIWKNNer1Cc[/video]
I remember some time ago a cousin actually tossed me this video regarding why so many people have questions regarding 9/11
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbylOmQGt7w[/media]
Some things in this video do bring up some legitimate concerns, the problem is though is that almost every conspiracy theorist tries to talk about WTC7, which compared to things like the Pentagon is rather, "...So?"
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49346295]I remember some time ago a cousin actually tossed me this video regarding why so many people have questions regarding 9/11
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbylOmQGt7w[/media]
Some things in this video do bring up some legitimate concerns, the problem is though is that almost every conspiracy theorist tries to talk about WTC7, which compared to things like the Pentagon is rather, "...So?"[/QUOTE]
Legitimate concerns such as...
The whole Pentagon thing sorta could leave anyone scratching their head. It's an issue of "how..?" considering how perfect the impact sounds.
[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;49345120]My biggest issue with 9/11 conspiracies is it relies on our government being competent and being able to keep a secret.
Which if Watergate told us anything, isn't gonna happen.[/QUOTE]
it's a nice witty counter argument to conspiracy theories but it doesnt hold any weight
it is entirely plausible that in order to make the conspiracy function, as little people as possible must know about it in the first place. it can even be just two people, or one at the most. keeping a secret between two parties is infinitely easy if the secret in question is controversial enough and there is too much at risk, plus everybody has something (if not everything) - to lose.
most conspiracies that were brought to light just happened to be widespread as fuck and all over the place until one person who has nothing to lose whistleblows it all to the public. that doesn't mean that conspiracies still couldn't be plausible and massive secrets could be withheld from the public in the name of its safety, interest or other.
of course thinking like this is going off the deep end but, you cant disprove the fact that it might have happened or is happening.
[QUOTE=Melnek;49346583]it's a nice witty counter argument to conspiracy theories but it doesnt hold any weight
it is entirely plausible that in order to make the conspiracy function, as little people as possible must know about it in the first place. it can even be just two people, or one at the most. keeping a secret between two parties is infinitely easy if the secret in question is controversial enough and there is too much at risk, plus everybody has something (if not everything) - to lose.
most conspiracies that were brought to light just happened to be widespread as fuck and all over the place until one person who has nothing to lose whistleblows it all to the public. that doesn't mean that conspiracies still couldn't be plausible and massive secrets could be withheld from the public in the name of its safety, interest or other.
of course thinking like this is going off the deep end but, you cant disprove the fact that it might have happened or is happening.[/QUOTE]
Except this is stupid.
A conspiracy of the size of the 9/11 one necessitates a LARGE group being involved. There's no way to even start talking about 9/11 as being an inside job of 2 people.
The only way two people keep a secret is if one of them is dead.
[editline]18th December 2015[/editline]
I'm not saying you're stupid btw. Merely saying that excuse in that scenario would be if it were really pulled out.
nah all conspiracy theories related to 9/11 are retarded by default, i'm referring to conspiracy theories in general
back on wtc 7, all the conspiracy things show off a video of it from its clean side just before it collapses... leaving out the side facing the towers, and the fact it was hours after the initial collapse that it finally gave way
[img]http://i.imgur.com/jyDMPMT.png[/img]
there's been some rather extensive work put into showing just how that damage (plus fire related structural weakening) could cause it to collapse
[t]http://i36.tinypic.com/25jbody.jpg[/t]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
