Thread: 9/11 Truth

Originally Posted by Grod

You don't have time to counter what she says? That means you have no argument.



As R.D said, just because the "majority" is for something, doesn't mean it's right. That argument is completely irrational and somewhat disappointing.

As for the "majority"... This is the internet. Of course you will see this kind of talk here. If you were to take a poll, of probably any area in the United States, the majority would agree that there was no conspiracy.

Mystic's point is a good one, I'm afraid. That the official story of who, what, where, how, and why, is the real conspiracy theory in the negative sense is at this point a proven fact.

You might want to check out some of the books by Dr. David Ray Griffin:

Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory

Or his lecture that was broadcast on C-SPAN. The last I heard C-SPAN doesn't usually give airtime to "crazy conspiracy theorists".

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Mystic's point is a good one, I'm afraid. That the official story of who, what, where, how, and why, is the real conspiracy theory in the negative sense is at this point a proven fact.

You might want to check out some of the books by Dr. David Ray Griffin:

Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory

Or his lecture that was broadcast on C-SPAN. The last I heard C-SPAN doesn't usually give airtime to "crazy conspiracy theorists".

No, you misconstrued my point. I made no opinion on whether R.D's or Mystic's opinion was correct.

All I said was both of his arguments were irrational and flawed.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Polls demonstrate that I lack awareness of the minority position? Perhaps you're right, because that's certainly news to me.

No. Polls demonstrate that awareness of 911 being an inside job is not a minority as commonly portrayed. That in itself is something disturbing. And pinpoints the major problem and flaw with media manipulation.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I completely agree with you on the conspiracy label, which is why I was puzzled at your remark that I was the conspiracy theorist in this debate.

In this case you are one. Not because it's a label or because I said so. But because steel doesn't melt because of jet fuel. And 1 airplane does not collapse an entire building let alone 3 of them on the same day after just 1 hour. That's why you are the conspiracy maker against this science that most can figure out.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I'm also curious as to where you got the impression that I've been theorizing that the towers collapsed accidentally, as opposed to being deliberately struck by airplanes. I don't recall any accidental collapse of any skyscraper in modern history, and the WTC was no exception.

Your curious about my impression are you? You know full well what I mean when I say they did not collapse by accident. Your not curious about it. You know exactly what I am talking about when I say that. It means that they did not fall down because of an airplane terrorist attack alone. But because of explosives. Ofcourse it was a deliberate terrorist attack. But by who and why? Your un-natural politeness is wearing thin. As I said your not keeping up appearances very well.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I hope you can find some spare time to counter my arguments, though. I really do appreciate it. I don't want the debate to degenerate into a monologue.

I will work on replying on what I see as your monologue. I find it irrelevant but some people may be interested so I will repond to it. But you will only come up will something else to suit your needs.

In the previous response. R.d.735. wants us to discuss micro cracks. That Micro-cracks are a factor. That e=stressX strain. R.d.735 makes a hudge unanswerable leap by blaming micro-cracks for some pulverizing of concrete. Micro-cracks do not contribute to the mass of pulverizing concrete caused by the explosives. Despite the fact that none of this is at all relevant to the material we should be answering too.

Originally Posted by r.d.735

Meanwhile, the downward compressive force on angled planes(caused by cracks) in the material creates a massive horizontal force that rapidly pushes material away and pulverizes some more material.

This is so silly as to be embarassing to clarify. The downward compressive force caused by impact does not create consistient horizontal outward force on each level that rapidly pushes away. Nor do any cracks of impact contribute largely or significantly to any polverization of material. As boring and irrelevant as this is to the subject. I would not care to agree or disagree with this mirco crack impact angled nonsense. A silly fantasy substitude for the explosives. Not educational. But brainwashing for those foolish enough to be dazed into the latest excuse.

Originally Posted by r.d.735

Concrete has little tensile strength because a non-compressive stress causes a great amount of strain. Thus, the energy equation quickly reaches the critical threshold with much less force applied. Metals can absorb a much greater amount of energy before failing, but the ease with which they deform does not lend them to supporting the same large loads that concrete can.

NOT relevant, nor important. But distracting. Yet this set of instructions about the nature of steel and metal allows R.d.735 to create an illusion of special artifical weakness by the tendancy of association. What is not mentioned is the impossibility of the structure to fail at all due to metal not getting weak from jet fuel. And no major infrastructural damage to the buildings. IN effect no-where near enough to cause a collapse in an hour. This significant point is always ignored.

Originally Posted by r.d.735

As I stated before, the WTC towers were held up mainly by steel supports. Therefore, one could reasonably expect that, no matter the mechanism of collapse, any concrete in the structure would be subjected to enormous compressive stresses, causing failure, and, to a casual observer, to explode outward.

Now we are suppose to associate compressive stress with failure. And you have sold your excuse. But no you havn't sold it yet. Because it doesn't make sense. The steel structure of the building was grided. Which means the plane was a pencil prick in the grid. Resulting in little 'compressive stress' to contribute to any collapse at all. The building was structured to equalize stress in any portion of a damaged area. Which is exactly what would have happened. Had the Thermate, and basement explosions not being utilized to bring the building down in a spectacular manner. Had most of the evidence not being illegally taken away immediately. This event would be well and truly assured as the case. However enough physical evidence and witnesses is left to conclude this is what happened anyway.

Originally Posted by r.d.735

It's probably redundant to point out, but many materials make a sound not unlike an explosion when they break. These observations are thus explained without regard to the cause of collapse.

No because you say it sounds like an explosion when it breaks. Does not explain anything. It is silly. It is pointless. It is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by r.d.735

I apologize for the lengthy, boring, tautological argument that this has been, I hope it's been educational at least.

This has taken up more time than I would like, responding to the irrelevance. I don't know why you still think 911 is not suspicious. You must be psychotic, at the least.

Mystic7, I'm still puzzled by your repeated references to the conspiracy theorist label, as well as your reference to polls, but I think the debate is better served by moving away from these subjects. We can both agree that they're unrelated to the mechanism that caused the collapse of the towers.

To keep the focus on physical observations, I'd appreciate it if someone on the other side of the debate can counter some of my physical reasoning from the previous posts and perhaps extend the debate to the behavior of the WTC's steel supports.

I'm trying to develop a consensus about what observations are common to both theories so that we can screen them out and focus on the differences. It may be that the majority of observations supporting one theory or the other are common to both and we can cease debating about whether they support one theory or the other. Ideally, a single observation will be left behind that can be debated more easily.

your rhetoric is well and truly countered if you google your own concerns if you were genuine. Your just trying to use words to make yourself sound good hoping people will be convinced by your paradigm of skeptism around the highly suspicious circumstances of the 911 event.