• The 911 Conspiracy Theory Explained in 5 Minutes
    331 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Glorbo;36388134] Please, explain to me then how the building was demolished from the inside, how explosives were placed in the building without anyone noticing, and how the detonators and explosives survived a 7 hour fire.[/QUOTE] You're answering my question with another question. It's a conspiracy [U]theory[/U], why do you expect me to have an answer for everything. I can agree with you on that part if you can agree with me on the free fall part.
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;36388154]For example. Here: User #1 claims this image is conclusive proof thermite was used to take down the buildings. User #2 attempts to refute his claim, because he took the photo completely out of context. User #2 blindly believes his claim and posts another picture, again taken out of context. Rather than asking for source material or prove of User #2's claim. User #2 proves that User #1 is wrong. User #1 promptly leaves the thread never to return. The alternative thing for Truthers to is change the subject or explain it away with an equally ridiculous theory.[/QUOTE] Thermite is a ridiculous theory anyway to anyone who has ever seen thermite in action. It is a bubbling mass, certainly not laser precise, and impossible to control in such a fashion. [editline]18th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=danelo;36388221]You're answering my question with another question. It's a conspiracy [U]theory[/U], why do you expect me to have an answer for everything. I can agree with you on that part if you can agree with me on the free fall part.[/QUOTE] The video you posted ignores the ENTIRE REST OF THE NIST REPORT and the video posted, especially in regards to the outer shell collapsing, internal collapse, and the goddamn physics model which is a 3D model and not a physics plaything.
[QUOTE=scout1;36388238] The video you posted ignores the ENTIRE REST OF THE NIST REPORT and the video posted, especially in regards to the outer shell collapsing, internal collapse, and the goddamn physics model which is a 3D model and not a physics plaything.[/QUOTE] Why should the NIST report be considered a legitimate source of information when they can't even get the math right. That's MY point, all other factors that you are saying are based off of eyewitness reports while as I am trying to prove something that doesn't rely on people but science.
[QUOTE=danelo;36388309]Why should the NIST report be considered a legitimate source of information when they can't even get the math right. That's MY point, all other factors that you are saying are based off of eyewitness reports while as I am trying to prove something that doesn't rely on people but science.[/QUOTE] He [B]cites the NIST report[/B]
[QUOTE=Glorbo;36388215][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U[/media] I always wondered why conspiracy theorists always show just one side of wtc7.[/QUOTE] This is a really good video, I also posted this in the 9-11 thread for a Truther, he went on to claim wonderful things like the lack of bodies at the pentagon (which I have pictures of, they're not even hard to find) or the fact that Jumpers were fake. [QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;35752669] Here is a video, there is quite a bit of WTC 7 footage and dialog between Firefighters, Command and the News. WTC 7 was engulfed in fire over almost every floor of the 44 story complex. They had no water to put it out and it was decided that because the building was creaking and sagging in certain areas that they didn't need to kill more Firefighters that day and pulled the out. This is where the famous "Pull it" comment came from. The building was already evacuated so it was the right decision to make, they didn't have water or pressure from the hydrants after the North and South Tower collapse to fight it anyway. They eventually had to run lines all the way to the river to fight the fires that were left over. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73PbUgXhoIU&feature=relmfu[/media] 10:57 and even more at 13:18 to the end of the video. It was obvious to most people that the fires in WTC 7 were out of control and were not going to be put out, especially after the massive loss of life and equipment and the logistics of trying to put it out in an atmosphere of thick smoke, dust and destruction. When it collapsed it was not a surprise. The building had been burning for eight hours.[/QUOTE] Apparently the "We have an empty high rise on fire. We just had two sky scrapers fall and kill 343 fire fighters (in reality they thought it was more at the time) why don't we send our tired, shell shocked surviving firemen up several stories to fight a fire without water or equipment? That's a good idea, let's do that." is bad logic for Truthers.
and why should the NIST report be considered false? They have a better model that contradicts his math. Why is their math inherently wrong?
[QUOTE=scout1;36388321]and why should the NIST report be considered false? They have a better model that contradicts his math. Why is their math inherently wrong?[/QUOTE] Because it was?
[QUOTE=danelo;36388221]You're answering my question with another question. It's a conspiracy [U]theory[/U], why do you expect me to have an answer for everything. [/QUOTE] [b]Yes[/b]. Otherwise, it's not a complete fucking theory. If you can't explain how it works, you clearly choose to ignore evidence that contradicts you. It's like saying "Sandwiches are actually horses in disguise" "Really? How does all of a horses mass fit into a sandwich?" "I don't know, it's a conspiracy theory, why do you expect me to have an answer for everything." ....
[QUOTE=danelo;36388337]Because it was?[/QUOTE] Bravo
[QUOTE=scout1;36388321]and why should the NIST report be considered false? They have a better model that contradicts his math. Why is their math inherently wrong?[/QUOTE] Conspiracy theorists tend to love assuming the government and everything government related is inherently wrong.
[QUOTE=danelo;36388337]Because it was?[/QUOTE] "It's false because it is" Great answer.
Pretty sure Danelo didn't even read the NIST report, he just assumes it's fake because his Truther youtube video tell him it is without ever going into detail as to why.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36388377]Conspiracy theorists tend to love assuming the government and everything government related is inherently wrong.[/QUOTE] So if the an organization affiliated with the government says that 3+4 is 5 it's foolish to consider otherwise? [QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;36388417]Pretty sure Danelo didn't even read the NIST report, he just assumes it's fake because his Truther youtube video tell him it is [B]without ever going into detail as to why.[/B][/QUOTE] He couldn't have gone into more detail if he tried.
[QUOTE=danelo;36388419]So if the an organization affiliated with the government says that 3+4 is 5 it's foolish to consider otherwise?[/QUOTE] Well no but you are clearly not in that case or any resembling case right now. Also I did not even say that it was foolish to question the obviously wrong, stop making up arguments to counter.
[QUOTE=danelo;36388419] He couldn't have gone into more detail if he tried.[/QUOTE] You mean like the 50+ page report which he cherry picked?
[QUOTE=Glorbo;36388399]"It's false because it is" Great answer.[/QUOTE] No it's false because he proved it was false, he compared his analysis to the NIST report and found out that they were lying and putting information in to make it seem like the building did not fall in free fall when it clearly did. He did CITE the NIST but only to mock it. [QUOTE=scout1;36388473]You mean like the 50+ page report which he cherry picked?[/QUOTE] He explains how the Report only had one page that explained the buildings free fall, when one of the most important factor of the entire report was the is the free fall part.
[QUOTE=danelo;36388511]No it's false because he proved it was false, he compared his analysis to the NIST report and found out that they were lying and putting information in to make it seem like the building did not fall in free fall when it clearly did. He did CITE the NIST but only to mock it.[/QUOTE] His model is grainy video footage (he says so himself), as opposed to a complete complex 3D model backed up by video, eyewitness testimony, and structural analysis but apparently he is more right than all that so okay
Is it bad that I am actually maniacally refreshing the page to see new responses of Danelo, because of how hilarious he is ? [QUOTE=danelo;36388511]No it's false because he proved it was false, he compared his analysis to the NIST report and found out that they were lying and putting information in to make it seem like the building did not fall in free fall when it clearly did. He did CITE the NIST but only to mock it.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure a dedicated report financed by the government and made by professionals can be trusted a little more than the vague analysis of a single deluded guy on the internet.4 But then again according to your logic everything even remotely related to the government has to be wrong.
[QUOTE=scout1;36388528]His model is grainy video footage (he says so himself), as opposed to a complete complex 3D model backed up by video, eyewitness testimony, and structural analysis but apparently he is more right than all that so okay[/QUOTE] It's not a matter of who is more reliable to trust, people can lie but you can't lie about physics. GOD, unless you guys can prove that gravity is in fact 50% slower in New York then I have nothing more to add.
[QUOTE=danelo;36388584]It's not a matter of who is more reliable to trust, people can lie but you can't lie about physics.[/QUOTE] See: 3d model simulation, 50+ page NIST report Remember, you can't lie about physics.
[QUOTE=danelo;36388584]It's not a matter of who is more reliable to trust, people can lie but you can't lie about physics.[/QUOTE] So you're assuming the guy managed to pull off perfect deductions from grainy incomplete videos.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36388595]So you're assuming the guy managed to pull off perfect deductions from grainy incomplete videos.[/QUOTE] Well what do you think the NIST was relying on, they had to use the same footage to come to a conclusion.
the subject of 9/11 is definitely an unusual one, regardless or whether or not an al qaeda cell, the government, or any private organization was behind it. nobody will ever truly know, and it's clear there are people in the world who prefer it that way.
[QUOTE=danelo;36388584]It's not a matter of who is more reliable to trust, people can lie but you can't lie about physics. GOD, unless you guys can prove that gravity is in fact 50% slower in New York then I have nothing more to add.[/QUOTE] I can prove that grainy video footage is not a reliable source for making precise calculations
[QUOTE=danelo;36388612]Well what do you think the NIST was relying on, they had to use the same footage to come to a conclusion.[/QUOTE] Or that huge accurate professionally made 3D simulation of theirs that was relying on precise infos about the crash as well as tons of informations concerning the structure of the building itself before it was attacked. I doubt your truther guy knew how the building was exactly built, because I'm pretty sure the way a building is built DOES tend to change the way it's gonna collapse if something hits it hard enough.
[QUOTE=danelo;36388612]Well what do you think the NIST was relying on, they had to use the same footage to come to a conclusion.[/QUOTE] Except for you know EVERYTHING ELSE MENTIONED IN THIS THREAD [editline]18th June 2012[/editline] Including other footage!
[QUOTE=scout1;36388661]Except for you know EVERYTHING ELSE MENTIONED IN THIS THREAD [editline]18th June 2012[/editline] Including other footage![/QUOTE] There is only one video that shows the building in free fall motion, building schematics and eyewitnesses accounts cannot give an accurate prediction of how fast a building will fall. My point, and the "truther's" point is that, they clearly falsified the report to make it look like the building wasn't in a free fall.
[QUOTE=danelo;36388798]There is only one video that shows the building in free fall motion[/QUOTE] And the other videos are less accurate because
[QUOTE=scout1;36388818]And the other videos are less accurate because[/QUOTE] Oh, I was mistaken, there is more footage of it falling. This footage is the most accurate because the camera is static and not moving. So it's more precise to make measurements that way...
[QUOTE=danelo;36388899]Oh, I was mistaken, there is more footage of it falling. This footage is the most accurate because the camera is static and not moving. So it's more precise to make measurements that way...[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI&feature=player_embedded[/url] (linked in this thread) 2:05 [editline]18th June 2012[/editline] In fact you should probably watch that video, because it's clear you didn't when it was posted
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.