• The 911 Conspiracy Theory Explained in 5 Minutes
    331 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Greenen72;36412792]Oh god, I'm laughing my ass off[/QUOTE] lol, quoting wikipedia. nice
[QUOTE=PowerBall v1;36415050]lol, quoting wikipedia. nice[/QUOTE] Perhaps you should use it more often, you would be getting more reliable information than you are now.
[QUOTE=PowerBall v1;36412078] You people need to stop looking at things in black and white. If you've assesed all available info and come to your conclusion then fine [/QUOTE] It's funny because that's the exact opposite of what truthers do. They find one or two biased sources and post them as fact. When they get debunked, the continue acting like it never happened. Right out of Goebbels's playbook.
Godammit guys, the steel didn't melt. It was weakened. It yielded and then buckled under the weight of what it was supporting and proceeded to collapse, thus dropping more weight onto the next floor and so on. The outer walls were no longer supported by the crossing beams, and fell in on itself.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36415567]Godammit guys, the steel didn't melt.[/QUOTE] BUT 3 FIREMEN SAID THEY SAW MOLTEN METAL. YOU CANT SILENCE THE TRUTH MY FATHER IS AN ARCHITECT, WELL, A LANDSCAPING ARCHITECT (GARDENER), HE SAYS THAT IT COULDNT HAVE HAPPENED.
The worms have definitely gotten into Facepunch's brains.
[QUOTE=PowerBall v1;36415050]lol, quoting wikipedia. nice[/QUOTE] I'm sorry what, are you dense as fuck. You quoted wikipedia first for your definition of Occam's Razor, claiming that Greenen had failed to understand what the hell it was: [quote=PowerBall v1]Do you understand the law of Occam's razor or did you just post it in order to look smart? As Wikipedia puts it, in the event of "other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one".[/quote] At the same time making yourself look like the stupidest person in this thread by pasting the definition that was highlighted by wikipedia as the common misconception of what Occam's Razor is: [Quote=Greenen]The principle is often [B]incorrectly summarized[/B] as "other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one."[/Quote] Making a absurdly large contradiction and making yourself look like a moron. Now you are insulting him I guess, for quoting wikipedia, [B]which is exactly what you did[/B], but some how failed at. Good job. Now if your done making yourself look silly, you must understand why people are claiming Occam's Razor, your point that 9/11 was an inside job is absurd because it consists of far too many assumptions. You see it's all fine and dandy to not understand how a building like the twin towers collapsed, that's all good, it's also fine to posit a certain hypothesis for an event (i.e there might have been thermite in the twin towers). What I don't get is why people like you leap from lacking knowledge to OMG it must be an inside job. [B]I mean [/B][B]even [U]IF[/U] some of your claims are true it's absurd to leap to such a conclusion [/B]for instance even if there was thermite in the towers and/or WTC7 was a controlled demolition, that doesn't add up to it instantly being an inside job. Surely you should continue researching before jumping to such rash assertions, you also can't claim to be asking question or want a proper inspections of the events when you clearly already have an agenda and an extremely biased set of conclusions. Also I can understand having "questions" but like most "truthers" there's a huge difference between asking a question and making a giant assumption and then not exploring any of the provided explanations. You string all these silly assumptions together, you know thermite in the towers, wtc7 controlled demolition, rocket fired into the pentagon etc, and then scream about how "The government clearly did it guys", doesn't that seem incredibly illogical to you? Not to mention when you're provided with adequate explanations, as for instance with WTC7, the full video clearly shows how the inner structure collapsed and the outer shell fell because it was unsupported. When shown this you dance around how it was unscathed/never occurred in history before even after numerous sources explain how they were unable to to extinguish the giant billowing fire due to the chaos/lack of water, as a result it was inevitably going to collapse, and many firefighters attest to that. Also most conspirators fail to show the gaint gaping whole in the lower side of the buildings backface, that might be you know prudent to show. On top of your failure to understand Occam's Razor, you also failed to understand "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", the context has to do with lack of awareness. You dismiss the possibility that this is just a terrorist act simply because you haven't made the attempt to explore it, or haven't looked beyond your own personal viewpoin, you're all too frequently jumping to conclusions based on lack of information rather than the presence of it You then you made the more absurd claim by asking me to disprove that 9/11 was an inside job, doing so is absolutely insane, it's the same reason we don't have to disprove a claim like bigfoot, just because you can posit any claim doesn't mean the inability of someone to disprove it makes it undeniably true. Seriously are you just joking with me now, because I haven't heard such delusional crap in a while.
[QUOTE=PowerBall v1;36412078] A lot of people quite obviously find the official, "simple" explanation hard to believe. Evidently, since less than 50% buy the official version: [quote]On average, 46 percent of those surveyed said al Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government, [b]7 percent said Israel[/b] and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks[/quote] SOURCE: [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/10/us-sept11-qaeda-poll-idUSN1035876620080910[/url][/QUOTE] "THE JEWS DID IT" yeah, their take on 9/11 is a completely valid stance
porsche did 911
[Quote=PowerBall v1] A lot of people quite obviously find the official, "simple" explanation hard to believe. Evidently, since less than 50% buy the official version: On average, 46 percent of those surveyed said al Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government, 7 percent said Israel and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks SOURCE: [URL]http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/...35876620080910[/URL][/Quote] Doesn't this clearly show the absurd reasoning of judging claims of ignorance from a small percentiles view. I mean sure the "official story" isn't all that simple, but that's because it's scientific and fucking accurate, science isn't easy, engineering isn't easy. If anything this makes you seem extremely niave because you paint this picture that some how more simplistic views hold some credence, when in truth it makes your claims look much weaker because if they're "simplier" given your syntax they're likely more asinine and less factual. In short saying the building were magically destroyed by Merlin is probably simpler in context then say an inside job, does this now have more credence? This was also due to your misunderstand with what Occam's Razor meant, but even with your semantics of it being "simple" I fail to see how that's the case, objectively speaking how could it possibly be simpler that an entire government is behind the collapse of these buildings as opposed to a well examined and clearly motivated terrorist organization who was already a suspect for trying to attack the buildings in the past. As you can see I can judge simplicity in a non-subjective form, because it's where the evidence before and after this incident in majority leads, and thusly why you misunderstand Occam's Razor. This is also what we term an 'Argument from Authority', it doesn't matter how many people feel towards a claim it doesn't make the claim any more evident. Also the idea that 50% of the people don't believe the official story is irrelevant to your claim, why? Because as you demonstrate the other percentage of people have completely different beliefs as to what happened, as shown by the 7% who say Israel and 7% say something else.
All it means is that more than 50% are really fucking thick. I want to reason why, but i'm tired as shit. It should be easy for you to imagine that Education and logical understanding plays into it. So does argumentative skills and the ability to look at and process more angles. Something that many of those 'mericans seem to lack.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;36411798]Are there pictures of your leg breaking to prove it actually broke? Or are we to just trust the X-ray? Do i look stupid enough to believe that to you? I won't trust your empty allegations without proper proof![/QUOTE] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg[/url]
[QUOTE=IceBlizzard;36427483][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg[/url][/QUOTE] It was molten aluminum. [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] You posted a video in which a bunch of firefighters and workers claiming to have saw molten steel as though they could possible know what it is. Hell there is a women in the video you posted who claims the temperature was about 1100 degrees and was melting steel toed boots. If they where standing on top of something that was 1100 degrees they would have a lot more problems than melting boots. But this is ignoring the whole thermite theory which is completely baseless and stupid to begin with.
[QUOTE=Walrus.;36387165]I love the wtc 7 gif that appears a few times [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI[/media][/QUOTE] But what about the Windsor Tower in Madrid? That was steel and burned longer than WTC7.
[QUOTE=Coffee;36454345]But what about the Windsor Tower in Madrid? That was steel and burned longer than WTC7.[/QUOTE] Windsor Tower had a concrete core and floor. WTC7 did not. "The building totaled 32 story's, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor." [url]http://www.concretecentre.com/online_services/case_studies/windsor_building,_madrid.aspx[/url] "The building had a concrete central core with two rows of reinforced concrete columns in the north-south direction, aligned with the core side walls. The structure above ground was characterized by two transition floors at 3rd and 17th Floor levels, which housed plant and services. The typical floor slab construction was reinforced concrete bi-directional ribbed slabs, spanning onto composite steel beams in the east-west direction. The slabs were supported along the perimeter by steel columns, supplemented by reinforced concrete columns on two sides below 17th Floor level. The transition floors were formed with solid RC slabs and deep beams. The original facade mullions and transoms were fixed to the steel perimeter columns, and a new facade structure had been added to outside of old facade. The perimeter columns in turn were supported by transition structures at 17th and 3rd Floor levels. The central concrete core appeared to perform well in the fire and on initial observations seems to have played a major role in ensuring the stability of the building throughout the incident. The role of cores in multiple floor fires is now an immediate area of study required for the industry, and Arup have commenced investigating this issue. A thermo-mechanical assessment of this structural design, an understanding of why the structure performed as it did and why total collapse did not occur would provide valuable information for future structural fire analysis in design. It would assist in the strong move now towards structural fire engineered buildings, and therefore help with the move away from reliance on Building Code based single element testing and associated fire proofing techniques which do not address real and structural behavior in real fires." [url]http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150[/url]
Honestly. I have trouble decided which side is right. There's so much false information out there and so many people affected by it...
Can't believe people were still arguing about this. 9/11 was not a fucking conspiracy, holy shit.
[QUOTE=Duodecillian;36456197]Honestly. I have trouble decided which side is right. There's so much false information out there and so many people affected by it...[/QUOTE] Except almost none of the official story has been proven false.
[QUOTE=Coffee;36454345]But what about the Windsor Tower in Madrid? That was steel and burned longer than WTC7.[/QUOTE] I already explained that. It had a stronger weight load distribution system, it fell in the exact same way, just took a little while longer to do so.
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;36457497]Except almost none of the official story has been proven false.[/QUOTE] To be fair, the people giving us the information about it have the possibility of being involved. That's quite the conflict of interest.
[QUOTE=Duodecillian;36460192]To be fair, the people giving us the information about it have the possibility of being involved. That's quite the conflict of interest.[/QUOTE] The information is independently verifiable and nothing has turned up to be false.
[QUOTE=Duodecillian;36460192]To be fair, the people giving us the information about it have the possibility of being involved. That's quite the conflict of interest.[/QUOTE] Anyone who says the world is round may be involved in a conspiracy to kill everyone. Everyone might be in something, it is completely irrational because they 'may' be in some organization.
[QUOTE=Duodecillian;36460192]To be fair, the people giving us the information about it have the possibility of being involved. That's quite the conflict of interest.[/QUOTE] worst reason to abandon logic and reasoning ever
of all the conspiracies out there, this is by far the most stupid one
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;36385952]I hate conspiracy shit because a lot of it is just fucking crazy like fanatics with these weather changing gem stones that film clouds and how government helicopters spy on them while spewing chem trails. But 9/11 has always been incredibly shady and the "true" story is just fucking stupid, how can a few guys with fucking boxcutters go up against probably 80-100 people per plane and succeed? If they had automatic guns I could understand, but fucking boxcutters? Three people could have rushed them and took them out, ya someone would have been stabbed but better than dying regardless into some buildings. And why is it the plane headed for the white-house the only one that failed, and why was the one into the pentagon pretty lackluster in terms of damage. You wanna know why? Because you are all in on it, everyone thinks im crazy but your all crazy, im the sane one. Im on to you.[/QUOTE] I know this is a really late reply, but the terrorists did not have only box cutters. They also had fake explosives that they made the people believe were real by saying if they resisted they will detonate them.
Lotusking is MIA. Wonder where he went.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.