9/11=Inside Job

[Patriot911]

Quote by: Disinformant Actually, since you just made that all up it isn't a fact. The truth is, demolishing any building in NYC would harm the buildings around it. Additionally, this is what a building set on fire looks like, notice how it doesn't fall: Massive blaze in Beijing destroys Chinese TV hotel - Times Online http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/wo...g.html?_r=1&hp it didn't fall, look how much more of it was on fire! Keep in mind that WTC7 was recently structurally improved as well: COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million - The New York Times

Thank you for proving once again you can't answer a single question you've been asked in regards to Silverstein. Your silence is deafening.

So controlled demolition doesn't bring down a building in it's footprint and instead damages buildings around it? WOW! Kind of makes you wonder why people bother with controlled demolition if it damages the buildings around it.

How is it that this implosion didn't go outside the fence surrounding the building? What about the Hudson building in downtown Detroit? Didn't damage buildings right across the street from it.

Sadly, your claim that a controlled demolition of any building in NYC would damage the buildings around it is pathetic in that it is clearly not true or people wouldn't do controlled demolitions to remove buildings. It is much more cost effective to destroy a building the old fashioned way than repair all the buildings around the building you're taking down. A two year old can understand such a simple concept.

As for your example of the Chinese building, why is it truthers pretend every single building should act like every other building in the world even though the circumstances and construction are nowhere near the same? That is ignorance on an epic scale. Its like saying the Titanic shouldn't have sank because other ships have hit things and didn't sink.

[Disinformant]

just stop, seriously, your points are so irrelevant and you think they're so profound. i can't spend my life on this debate running around in circles.

[Patriot911]

Quote by: Disinformant just stop, seriously, your points are so irrelevant and you think they're so profound. i can't spend my life on this debate running around in circles.

Awwww..... Are you still pouting? I can't blame you for wanting me to go away. I keep pointing out the gaping flaws in your theories. You know the ones. The ones you could move an aircraft carrier through without even touching the sides. It must suck to see all your theories ripped to shreds like that.

Unfortunately for you, you don't run the board and seeing as how this is a debate forum, telling someone to shut up or go away isn't an option. So you will just have to live with me poking holes in all your posts. Address them if you want. It doesn't really matter to me. I'm not here to convince you of anything. I am here to make sure nobody actually falls for your outright lies. Like Silverstein admitted to demolishing the building or controlled demolition damages the buildings next to them.

Anyway, just carry on with the lies. I'll be here to expose them for what they are. Everyone will know you can't debate your theories. One of us will be happy. Life is good, isn't it!

Cheers!

[Matt W]

I suggest everyone on this thread re-reads the rules. Personal attacks are not welcome here. Be civil, or don't post.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Nono]

Perhaps Patriot and Disinformant could have their own face-off thread, thus clearing the frequency for others to get a word or two in edgewise.

Quote by: Barnhardt Cite even one example of a building being brought down by controlled demolition of the top of the building.

Why on earth would I want to do that??

Otherwise, what pointless irrelevancy neccessary for you to maintain your silly view of the world.

Let me get this straight, Barn -- If I don't come up with an example of something I already know doesn't exist, my silly view of the world is untenable. Am I reading you right?

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: Nono Perhaps Patriot and Disinformant could have their own face-off thread, thus clearing the frequency for others to get a word or two in edgewise. Why on earth would I want to do that?? Let me get this straight, Barn -- If I don't come up with an example of something I already know doesn't exist, my silly view of the world is untenable. Am I reading you right?

Since the assertion being made is

Quote by: JoeMama The entire buildings "seemingly," appear to fall from the top downwards, with what in my opinions looks highly similar to a controlled demolition.

You are simply making my point for me and just havent quite figured that out yet. Try and keep up. Controlled demolitions of tall buildings take out the lower floors, causing the floors immediately above them to collapse, followed by each floor, one after the other from the bottom up. Precisely the opposite of what occured with the WTC towers and Joemamas assertions.

[Georgia]

I can't believe this debate is still going on.

1. This would need to be a massively impossible, all encompassing coverup which would quickly prove to be unmanagable.

2. The strongest "evidence" I've heard was that aviation fuel can't melt steel.
Guess again. A single tanker of regular petro melted this bridge of concrete and steel to collapse:

Heat exceeded 1,510 degrees Celsius and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange to buckle and bolts holding the structure together to melt, leading to the collapse

Truck fire melts freeway bridge - World - theage.com.au

Imagine the weight of 10's of floors weighting that bridge :-/

Oooops, that doesn't quite fit the conspiracy does it :-)

[Nono]

Quote by: barn Try and keep up.

Duhh thanks. Done thought this wuz da flower-arrangement thread.

You are simply making my point for me.

This is where you are kinda slow on the uptake -- Did I ever argue with your point?

Anyway, Georgia, the point has been made (let's see...) exactly 837 times on Volconvo over the years that you don't have to melt anything. Just soften it a little.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: Nono Duhh thanks. Done thought this wuz da flower-arrangement thread. This is where you are kinda slow on the uptake -- Did I ever argue with your point?

Why yes you did. In response to my statement

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Odd opinion since controlled demolitions occur in precisely the opposite fashion.

you seemed to disagree when you replied

Quote by: Nono Actually, any collapsing building will fall top downwards, .

But you further clarified that you were simply pointing out that collapsing buildings fall down as opposed to up. Like I said-

Quote by: barnhardt2010 what pointless irrelevancy

[Ken Carman]

This may seem a sidebar, but in many ways: not. I willingly admit there are those who think 9/11 might be suspicious, or an inside job, who carry speculation too far, though I don't separate them into a category of mere 3: "Truthers," "Deniers" and those who accept the official story. Just to damn simplistic IMO.

Does TV actually encourage this kind of over the top conspiracy spinning? Consider an excerpt from the most recent edition of my column, Inspection...

I have spent a lot of time arguing on debate sites with those who defend torment, torture and the necessity of any big change in the freedoms we have here in America that might possibly "protect" us. I have noticed a good portion of these folks use 24-driven arguments are also huge fans of the show. They also have a lot of not so pent up hatred for what they refer to as "Truthers" and "Deniers:" those who question what happened on 9/11. I'm not quite in either camp. I do think there are questions regarding 9/11; but the important ones are regarding ignored warnings: intentional or not, and a certain large chunk of change that disappeared into the Taliban's hands shortly before 9/11 with no accounting for it. Did it wind up funding 9/11? I'm guessing we'll never know either way. Conspiracy theory doubters have some real good points. If any theory requires a lot of people being quiet and contingency planning, it's probably too complex to be completely true. Probably. I totally dismiss little; except complete theories so convoluted an idiot could see they are, at best, poor scripting. Which brings me back to 24. If you've avoided it, let me get you up to speed without a lot of filler. After a few weeks episodes, every year, it always looks like Jack has finally uncovered the conspiracy and all's well.... problem solved! But... (Wow! Wow! Who saw that coming?) ...they had a contingency plan, or someone we didn't suspect was also part of it. And off the conspiracy goes at a right angle, or even a 180 degree spin. Every few weeks that cycle repeats to the point where you have a vast number of people who had to keep it all quiet. And the, plotters have to make a multitude of plans in case plan A, B, C, J, Z or Pi Squared to the millionth power falls through. Wait. Wait, isn't this the same damn thing they complain about when they face off those whom they deride as "Truthers," "Deniers," conspiracy nuts and wackos? So they use a program in their core arguments that offers an increasingly twisted, and an increasingly convoluted plot line year after year. All of this would make even some of the most "out there" conspiracy folks scream, "Give me a friggin break."

If you want to check out the whole column, click HERE.

I admit this may eventually have to be split off into a separate thread, but for now I'm curious how this twist adds to the debate. Does TV encourage us to dive from simply asking questions and having doubts straight down into accepting convoluted theories?