• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Conspiracy believers, answer me this:

Well, ok then. Still way more than was burned off in the air from the first hit (north tower).

Not true. This only appears so because the only video footage we have of Flight 11's impact is from the North and does not capture the extent of the fireball. However, there is a video frame released lasy year that captured it, looking from the east:
10252460a455f5eac7.jpg


Flight 175 impact:
wtc_fireball_crop.jpg


Similar size.
 
busherie said:
First bear in mind that the objective of the attacks were not to inflict material damage. It was a 21st century PR operation, having people from around the world to have time to watch live on TV the burning towers, people jumping out, and finally the bouquet final (final fireworks bouquet) with the towers collapsing.

You must admit that, wether the terrorists entirely did it or there were some MIHOP, that 9/11 was a wonderful psyops...

Right. Wouldn't there be more shock value in the WTC's coming down just after the plane impacts? In your world, Rudy Giuliani in WTC7 with his hand on the button ready to initiate the charges after each impact?

The shock value would be immense. But you forget that people had time to evacuate the towers and people were cleared out from not only the towers but from around the area outside the towers as most intelligent folk new a collapse was a strong possibility.

Wouldn't bringing each tower down right on impact, especially the north tower, make more sense for shock value? It would have killed everyone inside it and brought it down on the people outside the tower? There would have been no time to evacuate anyone from inside the building or cordon off the area around the tower.

"21st century PR operation"
"the bouquet final (final fireworks bouquet) with the towers collapsing"
"9/11 was a wonderful psyops"

I find that extremely offensive. But not unexpected from a Cter.

einsteen said:
The shock effect is better if more TV channels are on the scene with their cameras to catch the dramatic collapse with screaming people.

Again, can you imagine if the north tower had collapsed just after impact? The chaos and carnage that would have caused?

Noone inside would have got out alive, and can you imagine how chaotic trying to mount a rescue operation on the south tower would have been with one already down? Not to mention the sheer panic and chaos in lower Manhattan with all the debris from the north tower?
 
Last edited:
That's not the argument. The argument is: the south tower had less fire, because the fuel burned outside the building. It was under control, and th FD was coming in to knock it down. So it had to come down before they got into the crash zone. No "accident."

Just clarifying where that argument comes from.

I wonder why, if that's "the" argument, I've never heard it before. I think I've read and heard a few truther arguments. :con2:
 
Actually, since we're asking the CT'ers basic questions, can I butt in with one that's been bugging me for a while?

Question: How can you guys be so damn stupid to think that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American government?

I'm sorry to be a little forward on my first day of posting here, but I've read so many threads here and elsewhere where the "evidence" offered by you CT'ers is blown out of the water. Continually. Regularly. Without any apparent effort.

If you truly were "skeptics" as you claim, surely this would make you begin to doubt these wild claims of a conspiracy???

Cheers,
TGHO
 
If the collapse of WTC1, 2 and 7 were indeed CD's, why the delay in time between the impact of the planes and collapse?

Are you implying big brother behind the scenes had enough compassion to let some people escape before detonating the buildings? The perpetrators of the event wanted to kill between 2 and 5 thousand, but not tens of thousands of people? Why. More deaths would get everyone on the bandwagon to war even faster, huh?

Or, are you saying there was a malfunction with the CD in BOTH buildings, and it took about an hour to fix each problem?

Or they had the story pre-written (evidenced by the BBC's amazing prophesy) and time was needed to support the story that fires "raged" and weakened the steel.
 
Actually, since we're asking the CT'ers basic questions, can I butt in with one that's been bugging me for a while?

Question: How can you guys be so damn stupid to think that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American government?

I'm sorry to be a little forward on my first day of posting here, but I've read so many threads here and elsewhere where the "evidence" offered by you CT'ers is blown out of the water. Continually. Regularly. Without any apparent effort.

If you truly were "skeptics" as you claim, surely this would make you begin to doubt these wild claims of a conspiracy???

Cheers,
TGHO
You show your biased well. You don't seem to be interested in facts with the comment "How can you guys be so damn stupid to think that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American government?" which is just a comment and not a true question.

You bias is apparent in that you believe US would never do it, so straight off the bat you discount thier points before you even hear them.
 
SO, you people are now back to the "planes hit, but explosives were needed tobring down the towers" thingy? Or perhaps you never really left it (I find it difficult to keep track of all these theories, since they all lack inner logic)?

OK; of course that makes things easy. We just recycle things: How do you suggest they managed to wire exactly the right spot where the plane hit?

Hans
 
If you truly were "skeptics" as you claim, surely this would make you begin to doubt these wild claims of a conspiracy???

Cheers,
TGHO

Their definition of scepticism is this:

Never believe anything the government says.
Never believe anything the main stream media says - unless it somehow supports the conspiracy theories.
All evidence debunking conspiracy theories is just from guys who love Bush/government shills.
Any official explanation is wrong, because it's official and therefore controlled.

So basically, anything that contradicts their theories is a lie to them. That's their way. They have a predetermined solution, with no way to change their minds.
 
You bias is apparent in that you believe US would never do it, so straight off the bat you discount thier points before you even hear them.
Read the guy's post, OK?

He says "I've read so many threads here and elsewhere where the "evidence" offered by you CT'ers is blown out of the water. Continually. Regularly. Without any apparent effort."

He has heard the arguments. It has nothing to do with bias.

Hans
 
Yes, and had they succeeded in knocking down that fire, they would have been able to proceed. Thus, the argument is that the south tower had to come down quickly; it was becoming more urgent than the north tower.

As usual, you have no goddamned idea what you're talking about. That's because your gospel is the work of people who have no goddamned idea what they're talking about.

The 78th floor of the south tower was struck by the outer left wing of flight 175. It was the lowest floor that sustained direct damage from the aircraft.

The 78th floor of the south tower was a Sky Lobby which did not contain a vast amount of inflammables as did the office floors. It consisted largely of elevator banks, escalators, marble, glass, and steel.

Many people on the 78th floor survived the plane's impact. 16 people were trapped in one of its elevators and perished when the tower collapsed, along with the people who were trying to rescue them.

Chief Orio Palmer, who was not carrying equipment, made it to the 78th floor from the 44th floor sky lobby via stairwell A, the only one that was passable. That stairwell was on the opposite side of the building core from the plane impact.

At 9:52, seven minutes before collapse, Chief Palmer radioed that there were two isolated pockets of fire on the 78th floor. Even if he had had men and hoses, there was no water with which to fight the fires.

At 9:52, two floors above Chief Palmer, the south tower looked like this:

8790460a51c331a49.jpg


Please stop repeating garbage that you learned from people with an agenda that prevents them from having a goddamned idea of what they're talking about.

I'm begging you to stop doing that.


 
Wouldn't bringing each tower down right on impact, especially the north tower, make more sense for shock value? It would have killed everyone inside it and brought it down on the people outside the tower? There would have been no time to evacuate anyone from inside the building or cordon off the area around the tower.

I think the point einsteen was making was that if this had been done, then there would be next to no video evidence for them all to pore over for years to come. There needed to be time to get as many cameras as possible trained on the same spot, kept at a safe distance, in order to capture the moment.

However, this gives rise to the possibility of film catching the conspirators out on a detail - like a missile instead of a plane hitting the second tower, or all those explosions needed to bring down the towers and WTC7, or any of the other things the truthers claim can be seen there that day. And a smart MIHOP govt wouldn't take that chance, really.
 
Read the guy's post, OK?

He says "I've read so many threads here and elsewhere where the "evidence" offered by you CT'ers is blown out of the water. Continually. Regularly. Without any apparent effort."

He has heard the arguments. It has nothing to do with bias.

Hans
Suggesting that it is crazy to even think that elements in govt would never do it means he looked at the evidence truthers offer with preconcieved notions. Which means when he read CT's evidence he had already decided it was not an inside job. Bias apparent.
 
You show your biased well. You don't seem to be interested in facts with the comment "How can you guys be so damn stupid to think that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American government?" which is just a comment and not a true question.

You bias is apparent in that you believe US would never do it, so straight off the bat you discount thier points before you even hear them.

I highlighted the crucial part of your post. This isn't about believing in government conspiracies, it's about the evidence relating to 9/11.

When you discover evidence that implicates the U.S. government, let us know. The majority of people in the world would be very interested in such evidence, as would 100% of people who post in this forum.

Until then, no whining. Fair enough?
 
Suggesting that it is crazy to even think that elements in govt would never

You mean "ever". But it's a strawman. That was not what he said. He sait it was crazy to think that the governemt did it. Not "would ever do".

do it means he looked at the evidence truthers offer with preconcieved notions. Which means when he read CT's evidence he had already decided it was not an inside job. Bias apparent.

Your bias is apparant, yes. You are saying that if he really read your evidence, he would be convinced. Only he did, and he wasn't. Like the rest of us.

You seem to assume that the CT evidence would convince anybody who actually studied it. Which is pretty naive, alone because so much of it is self-contradictory.

Hans
 
I highlighted the crucial part of your post. This isn't about believing in government conspiracies, it's about the evidence relating to 9/11.

When you discover evidence that implicates the U.S. government, let us know. The majority of people in the world would be very interested in such evidence, as would 100% of people who post in this forum.

Until then, no whining. Fair enough?

You love that whining term don't you? I wasn't whining. If I said that there is no way OJ killed anybody do you think they would allow me on the jury? No? Why? Because that proves that I am biased. Just exactly like his statement.
I can't believe anybody would believe the Govt would do that, then I search to prove them wrong, that is bias. It is the same thing if a truther hated the govt and said I know they did it, let me research to prove it. Obviously biased. And it is not a oneway rd, fair debate requires consistent standards.
 
You mean "ever". But it's a strawman. That was not what he said. He sait it was crazy to think that the governemt did it. Not "would ever do".

True, but him saying people are "stupid" shows he began with preconcieved notions that peoople are stupid to believe such theories.

Your bias is apparant, yes. You are saying that if he really read your evidence, he would be convinced. Only he did, and he wasn't. Like the rest of us.
Now that is a strawman, I never said such a think, not even close, not evev if I am taken out of context.

You seem to assume that the CT evidence would convince anybody who actually studied it. Which is pretty naive, alone because so much of it is self-contradictory.
Never said that. What I said is if you believe that it is crazy to believe govt conspiracy is possible then that will set you on a path to disprove it. Looking critically at it you would not start out with preconcieved notions and try to prove one side is right. You would look from the "debunkers" viewpoint and the "truthers" viewpoint. His statement implies that he discounted the later from the get-go.
 
You mean "ever". But it's a strawman. That was not what he said. He sait it was crazy to think that the governemt did it. Not "would ever do".

Hans

I was informed by many posters that correcting peoples grammer and typos is considered rude. I don't really think so, but since I got attacked for politely correcting someone I think it is only fair that the standard be applied to both sides of the argument.
 
You love that whining term don't you? I wasn't whining. If I said that there is no way OJ killed anybody do you think they would allow me on the jury? No? Why? Because that proves that I am biased. Just exactly like his statement. *snip*

Persisting in your strawman. TGHO said:

Question: How can you guys be so damn stupid to think that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American government?

He did NOT say "The USG could never do such a thing". He said it was stupid to think that the USG did 9/11.

And if you can't understand the difference between those two statements, there are some things I begin to understand ;).

Hans
 
True, but him saying people are "stupid" shows he began with preconcieved notions that peoople are stupid to believe such theories.


Now that is a strawman, I never said such a think, not even close, not evev if I am taken out of context.


Never said that. What I said is if you believe that it is crazy to believe govt conspiracy is possible then that will set you on a path to disprove it. Looking critically at it you would not start out with preconcieved notions and try to prove one side is right. You would look from the "debunkers" viewpoint and the "truthers" viewpoint. His statement implies that he discounted the later from the get-go.

Yet you refuse to cast your same non biased critical eye on truther arguments, you suck it all up, buy it all and pay homage to it all,why is that?

Why will you not apply your non preconceived notion to analysing and evaluating this claims made by the truth movement?

Are you too lazy? Or do you just want to be seen a cool anti establishment dude?

You buy it all because you want to buy it all, you want to believe that your fellow Americans, planned, executed and cover up mass murder of 3000 of their own. So you desperately look around and cling to any scarp of garbage pumped out by your fellow truthers. You cling to, knowing that you are not alone for to be so, would be terrifying to you. It is far better to pretend that everybody agrees with you and those that don't well, they are just not thinking for themselves are they?
 
True, but him saying people are "stupid" shows he began with preconcieved notions that peoople are stupid to believe such theories.
Like me, he's probably astonished that people can believe in the CT without a shred of evidence to support it. Especially when it is compared to the mountains of evidence that supports the accepted course of events.

Calling you guys "stupid" is simply a reflection of the easiest explanation for why you believe what you do. Other explanations require a thorough analysis of the psycology and mental health of the various CT factions. I wouldn't doubt that most CT's are just stupid, or otherwise smart people who are completely ignorant of how science works and how it came to the conclusions it did. Others (the Wood/Fetzer faction) may well be mentally ill. Some are just paralyzed by irrational paranoia.

Just MHO, of course.
 

Back
Top Bottom