Thread: 9/11 Truth

Of course, all of this does little to address real differences between the evidence used to prove the conspiracy and the evidence used to refute it. If we don't stick to the topic, everyone is just spitting into the wind.

Let's leave the Illuminati for the Illuminati thread, and leave the long lists of links for those who have the time to sift through them for the small item of information necessary to make a point. That is debate by proxy.

Sorry. You know how good Universal Mind is at distracting me.

The reason why I provide the links is for those that want to research it. Then they can enter the debate if they wish in an informed manner. It also refutes a lot of stuff that magazines like popular mechanics and other debunking sites listed by UM make up.

R.D.735 you talked a lot about chemicals. But I don't think you explained exactly how steel can melt or weaken even, and give way, just from jetfuel in 1 hour and collapse the building. That to me just does not make sense and it's never happened in history to any building. Fire never has collapsed a high rise building. And I certainly don't think these two towers are made especially weak. I think the innovations by the engineers actually made them stronger than normal at the time.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Sorry. You know how good Universal Mind is at distracting me.

The reason why I provide the links is for those that want to research it. Then they can enter the debate if they wish in an informed manner. It also refutes a lot of stuff that magazines like popular mechanics and other debunking sites listed by UM make up.

R.D.735 you talked a lot about chemicals. But I don't think you explained exactly how steel can melt or weaken even, and give way, just from jetfuel in 1 hour and collapse the building. That to me just does not make sense and it's never happened in history to any building. Fire never has collapsed a high rise building. And I certainly don't think these two towers are made especially weak. I think the innovations by the engineers actually made them stronger than normal at the time.

You didn't read the links, or else you are ignoring what they say. State where they are wrong. The WTC link explains exactly why the steel did not have to be melted all the way for the buildings to collapse. Give a rebuttal, not just a picture of some guy in an Easter Bunny outfit. You begged for answers to your stuff that is not evidence of an inside job, and now you have it.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Of course, all of this does little to address real differences between the evidence used to prove the conspiracy and the evidence used to refute it. If we don't stick to the topic, everyone is just spitting into the wind.

Let's leave the Illuminati for the Illuminati thread, and leave the long lists of links for those who have the time to sift through them for the small item of information necessary to make a point. That is debate by proxy.

The links I posted were very to the point, and they were the exact explanations of experts. That is much stronger than our nonexpert silliness in attempting to act like we have PhD's in engineering. And I don't see how you could think the Illuminati is not responsible for 9/11 after seeing Mystic's video of a guy dressed up like the Easter Bunny on a street corner.

Yes we are all going to dress up as rabbits and protest every month. Anyone care to explain to me how the buildings collapsed? I've provided the links that more or less exposes and sums up the reality of the situation.

I can't fault you there, UM, but posting links doesn't remedy the problem of ineptitude. Silliness is, like it or not, the best we have when the debate is in regard to subjects beyond our expertise. I'm optimistic, though, that even us lower-tier intellectuals can make sense out of the information from other sources and represent it in our posts accurately enough to be useful in debate.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=q8XToX7aSdg

Not trying to be too one sided on this issue, but it seems like the more educated people in engineering/physics/demolition are always for the inside job story.

Originally Posted by Aldrich

http://youtube.com/watch?v=q8XToX7aSdg

Not trying to be too one sided on this issue, but it seems like the more educated people in engineering/physics/demolition are always for the inside job story.

No, there are like 200 of them in the world. That supervast majority doesn't think anything of the inside job idea.

Please link me to more than 200 demolition/engineering experts that claim 9/11 was not an inside job.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Please link me to more than 200 demolition/engineering experts that claim 9/11 was not an inside job.

Please link me to 200 scientists who argue that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Please link me to 200 scientists who argue that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

LOL. What does any of the most recent conversation have to do with the FSM? Where did that come from?

I do have to say, UM, that you are constantly talking about how many of the professionals say that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, but I have never seen anything but a few, here or there. You constantly ask for people to present accredited support for their claims, but on this one, you haven't really produced.

Your last claim was "That supervast majority doesn't think anything of the inside job idea." So, please (for the sake of balanced argument) present something, to that end, that rivals the 200+ professionals that do think something of it, or acknowledge it as the assumption that I believe it is.

And I don't think "Well, if they did, we would have heard it from them by now" is any support for that claim, as it is nothing but speculation.