|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 211)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Stasis |
I seriously can't believe there's more 'Yes' votes than 'No'.
Conspiracy theories are a natural coping mechanism, but are in general, universally false. They arise whenever the causes seem disproportionately small to the magnitude of the event. JFK being killed by a lone gunman, the World Trade Center being destroyed by a small band of terrorists, etc. etc. The assassination of a president is simply too large an event to satisfactorily be explained by the lone gun-man. But sometimes all it takes to pop a big-red balloon is a tiny little pin.
Stop kidding yourselves, suck it up, and learn to accept that sometimes terrible, terrible things happen for no good reason. It's part of growing up. |
|
|
| _Ocean_Drive_ |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
maybe you could explain how the Titanic was sunk by an iceburg when much smaller ships have been bombed, torpedoed, and/or struck by aircraft and survived. |
Titanic was poorly built. End of.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
like i said, the two situations are not remotely comparable, please stop trying. |
As in the kind of "stop" that was used when you said you would no longer continue to post in here?
...like I said; the fact that they are NOT comparable is my point. Airline vs A-bomb. Drop an A-Bomb over the WTC, it would still be standing, if the genbaku dome is. So my point is... How can one plane of mesh-carbon composite, destroy...... oh it. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_
...like I said; the fact that they are NOT comparable is my point. Airline vs A-bomb. Drop an A-Bomb over the WTC, it would still be standing, if the genbaku dome is. So my point is... How can one plane of mesh-carbon composite, destroy...... oh it. |
for s sake, it was a fluke that the building survived the nuclear blast. That is why nuclear damage estimators list "Urban areas almost completely levelled" inside the 20 psi ring not "Urban areas completely levelled". One ing building survives in an entire city and you want to use that as evidence that a plane could not have brought down the WTC? Please, nobody could be so stupid as to think that this is any kind of valid comparison.
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_
But my point is? Surely the smaller it is, the easier it is to destory?
It's not; which is my point. I'm sure you'll find holes in this, but... I'm assuming A-bomb provides a stronger explosion, more intense heat, more damage than a jet-liner crashing into a building? |
nope..... the higher a structure is the more succeptable it is to oscillation (wave action) via wind loads and earthquake loads. Or in your example a blast wave which can be modeled as a very large wind load since it was an air detonation. since it was a very low structure, it is far less succeptable to wind loads (or pressure waves)
bottom line is an a bomb air detonated has absolutely no comparable effect on a building to an airplane impact. |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | | 6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same. |
What Evidence?
Has anyone provided the matching serial numbers to any of airliners yet? A link maybe?
Apparently a lot of you believe very blindly to what you think are facts. Prove it was Flight 77 like previously mentioned, without showing random airplane parts on a lawn and the video released which already does not show Flight 77 crashing into to the Pentagon.
Surely after 7 years and a so called legit 9/11 commission inquiry you guys can provide more to convince the majority at least here on this forum.... |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
What Evidence?
Has anyone provided the matching serial numbers to any of airliners yet? A link maybe?
Apparently a lot of you believe very blindly to what you think are facts. Prove it was Flight 77 like previously mentioned, without showing random airplane parts on a lawn and the video released which already does not show Flight 77 crashing into to the Pentagon.
Surely after 7 years and a so called legit 9/11 commission inquiry you guys can provide more to convince the majority at least here on this forum.... |
the fact that they found dead bodies from flight 77 and the fact that there were hundreds of witnesses is enough for me. |
|
|
| _Ocean_Drive_ |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
for s sake, it was a fluke that the building survived the nuclear blast. That is why nuclear damage estimators list "Urban areas almost completely levelled" inside the 20 psi ring not "Urban areas completely levelled". One ing building survives in an entire city and you want to use that as evidence that a plane could not have brought down the WTC? Please, nobody could be so stupid as to think that this is any kind of valid comparison.
|
So when you went to Hiroshima for the 37th time, surely you must've remmebered the other buildings that were still standing? |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_
So when you went to Hiroshima for the 37th time, surely you must've remmebered the other buildings that were still standing? |
again
Boeing 757
Airbus A380
FAT MAN
One of these things is not like the other.... do do do dod od |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
again
Boeing 757
Airbus A380
FAT MAN
One of these things is not like the other.... do do do dod od |
hahaha. sesame street ftw. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
What Evidence?
Has anyone provided the matching serial numbers to any of airliners yet? A link maybe?
Apparently a lot of you believe very blindly to what you think are facts. Prove it was Flight 77 like previously mentioned, without showing random airplane parts on a lawn and the video released which already does not show Flight 77 crashing into to the Pentagon.
Surely after 7 years and a so called legit 9/11 commission inquiry you guys can provide more to convince the majority at least here on this forum.... |
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
Dude you are the poster child for those three characteristics. Listen dip, I'm going to ask for the 5th (or maybe 6th) time, if Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon:
1. Provide an alternate explanation and evidence to support it
2. Where is Flight 77, its crew, and all its passengers
You won't answer the question though because you can't even produce a shred of legitimate evidence that anything but Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Until you ing no-planer tards can answer the two questions above and provide actual real evidence to support your answers I'm done with you. So quit trolling the ing thread you douche and just stop posting until you have some actual evidence to back up what you are claiming.
Some airplane parts at the Pentagon + remains of people from Flight 77 + eye witness accounts of a plane hitting the Pentagon is a hell of a lot more evidence than any of you no-planer twits have ever produced. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make. |
|
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
Tell me again how a 757 made that hole in the pentagon? Because of that ty 5 frame video they released out of how many available camera views?
Who is really making the leap in judgement?
You s are all about sticking to the story, and won't lend critical thinking in any criteria you've deemed 'truthist'. |
|
|
|
|
