Do you think 9/11 is a conspiracy?

We haven't been involved in anything in the middle east.

These people just point to the map one day and said, those americans, we don't like them because they're free, lets kill em.

And huh? That's what I was saying. America does tons of fucked up shit. I was saying that the idea that America can do no wrong is ridiculous.
 
problem solved?

youre definitely right. its hard to change points of view and most people only have one-way morals and ethics
 
just read the wiki article and omg what a fucked up event.

if a high-tech warship "doesnt know" that its a fucking airliner and mistakes it for a military plane, i would say that this is a pretty bad mistake.

obviously, they were too aggressive but the worst part is that bush refused to apologize because it was an "act of war" and even handed out a legion-of-merit order to the responsible commander.

thats just fucked.

seriously guys, i am a big fan of the US, but some of you have to stop trying to defend everything your government did. this whole MERICA fuck yeah thing wont get anyone far.

take just the patriot act. ever heard of the nazis "decree for the protection of people and state"? cant tell me that the government wasnt overreacting.

look at norway, they know how to handle a tragedy of unparalleled dimensions without going on a hate-spree of even more unparalleled dimensions.
 
babbageBrain.jpg
 
It was a no fly zone due to the conflict at hand which was taking place. There was no contact at all from the airliner. Not even arabic. The crew of the plane have to share some of the blame. What if it was a weather vessel trying to contact them to warn them of an approaching storm or volcanic eruption and then they crashed then it would be total pilot error. You cant blame the crew of the ship for doing what they were supposed to be doing.
 
Im not saying everything the Americans do is good. But at the time commercial airliners did not carry the transponder thinger that paints them as commercial. So there was no way of telling it apart from a military plane. Not to mention it was on a direct intercept course and then began to descend as most military planes to shoot missiles. You fly your plane over Any countries war ships during a time on conflict and fail at radio communication you get shot down. It was a sucky coincidence.
 
Jesus christ I thought I explained this.

The science explains why the controlled demolition theories are all shit.

There's no evidence that the government did it, and it doesn't even make any sense that they would, that's what Chomsky said in that video (I thought you said you thought he was an authority on the subject but I guess not).
 
1) the plane didnt begin to sink (blackbox data)

2) the vincennes didnt have the required technique to monitor commercial radio dialogues and thereby wasnt able to identify the plane which was talking all the time in english.

3) the plane had a transponder, but the high-tech computer thingy AEGIS or CIC or whatever confused it with another plane starting at a similar time and location.

4) the vincennes was in iranian waters (even though they said otherwise first), and probably on the captains own wish.

this is as close to a terrorist attack you can get. shooting around with such efficient weapons when youre just too dumb to figure shit out is horrible and apparently the captain had a reputation for trying to start fights. so many civilian casualties, that is not acceptable in this day and age.
 
lol unfortunately that is all it explains.

there's also no evidence that the gov had zero involvement. the only reason that possibility makes no sense to you is because you have yet to learn history lol. jesus christ.......chomsky acknowledges that america has helped and supported travesties throughout history and lies to the masses........

btw, i never ever said chomsky was an authority on the subject lol. that would only be true when comparing to people like you. you are just proving that you are delusional and form answers from speculation, without asking questions.

“We should stop suicide bombers. We should stop sending them bombs, we should stop sending them money, we should divest from suicide bombing governments.” -Noam Chomsky
 
also dont forget that it was the iran-iraq war of the 1980s. the US were not an official conflict party.

this is not desert storm. you know?
 
As do I, but I (like him) realize that this particular idea that the US government was behind 9/11 makes no sense, has no evidence to support it, and there's a lot of evidence against it.

The US government does bad things, they didn't do this bad thing though.
 
from a dozen of researches on controversial topics, the only moderatly unbiased source is wiki.

obviously discovery channel seems pretty legit, but since you kind of fucked up some obvious info, it might been too long since you saw it or whatever.

 
Are Noam Chomsky and Julian Assange government sheep? Because they both think the 9/11 conspiracy theories are foolish.
 
lol why are you even comparing yourself to chomsky and assange? chomsky does not even think they are foolish. he thinks there is not enough critical evidence to distinguish truth. he understands history well and thinks people who jump to conclusions, pointing the finger(like "conspiracy theorists") are foolish.

you're focusing only on the physics of what happened with the buildings while ignoring $ and paper trails. bp's liberty rig won't start production of lisbon zone until there's no oil coming from middle east. convenient, yes........but do you deny this? "control over middle east oil gives us veto powers over what our rivals might do." believing and knowing are not the same. watch these chomsky interviews to get an idea of reality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBI9mC77igo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rdOYN8IPIA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mA4HYTO790

 
I am not comparing myself to them except to say that I agree with them both on this issue that this theory holds no water, either internally or while considering the physical evidence.

Chomsky doesn't think the conspiracies are foolish? I'm not sure if you actually listened to what he says, because he quite easily blows some huge holes in the whole inside job idea.

"The rest of the evidence is kind of circumstantial, you know, odd coincidences, why didn't this happen and so on and so forth. The problem with that is that that's the kind of evidence you can accumulate about just about any complex event. I mean by that kind of evidence you could probably prove that the White House was bombed yesterday. And in fact that's why scientists do experiments in stead of taking video tapes of the world. Video tapes of the world are just too complicated, too many things happen, and you can't learn very much from them. Even in controlled experiments you find odd coincidences, unexplained phenomenon."

-Noam Chomsky, explaining why the 9/11 "truth" movement's evidence is shit.

As for Julian Assange, he said "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud."

 
Oh right so that totally explains why the US military would blow up it's own headquarters and pin it on a terrorist in Afghanistan working with Saudi nationals so we could invade Iraq, not because of 9/11 but because of WMDs that weren't there and this brilliant conspiracy didn't even bother to plant.

We can talk about the $ and the "paper trails" too, personally I think that makes the 9/11 truth movement look even dumber.
 
wtf not even once there does he say that the theories are foolish. he used the word "circumstantial"!!!!! he is saying there is not enough critical evidence to distinguish the truth. "The problem with that is that that's the kind of evidence you can accumulate about just about any complex event. I mean by that kind of evidence you could probably prove that the White House was bombed yesterday." "Even in controlled experiments you find odd coincidences, unexplained phenomenon." booooooom, just because something is convenient does not make it fact. how you get your pants on in the morning is beyond me.
 
wat? i never said that lol what is up with you and your delusions??? i asked if you denied that to be true as an example of convenient "evidence", simply because i felt that you do not ask enough questions to come up with solid conclusions.

you are not mentioning the $ and "paper trails" because you think it makes that movement look stupid? i find that impossibly hard to believe based on your past comments, but ok haha.
 
Um, did you miss that part where he compared the evidence used to show 9/11 is an inside job to evidence that could be used to prove the white house was bombed yesterday? He's saying that the evidence is so weak that it could be used to show anything, in other words, he's calling it shit.
 
bahahahahahha duhhhhhh, convenience is not real evidence.

"Even in controlled experiments you find odd coincidences, unexplained phenomenon."
 
First of all I think you mean "coincidence," and secondly, EXACTLY. The 9/11 truth movement has nothing BUT coincidence, they have no evidence.
 
Circumstantial evidence is generally pretty bad evidence, and in this case it is especially bad. That's what Chomsky was getting at.
 
...............i already know that, kid. so how did you spin that into him saying that people are "foolish" lol? you can't even properly decipher messages from his words. talk about an "egregious thinker"... not sure what you are trying to convince me of, but if it is that you are egotistic then you are doing well.
 
duh. it is not real proof, just convenient facts. "What are the chances of their even wanting to bring democracy to the Middle East. They've never done it anywhere else and they're trying to do it now? You see any evidence for it? The only evidence is that they say so." he also said the people who are foolish are the ones who after spending just a few hours reading reports and articles on the internet consider themself to be an expert on the subject and can form an absolute conclusion lol. you fall right into this category, "The US government does bad things, they didn't do this bad thing though."

his whole point was that some things are unexplained. just admit to yourself that you took his words way out of context and that it's possible you don't have all the answers.
 
Just the fact that you can instantly write it off as having a 0% chance of anything going down makes you sound pretty darn brilliant.

I mean seriously. Even if you think it's a low ball percentage, history tells us that something shady going down as a possibility, isn't something to be so easily ruled out.

History, the legislation that was passed, the people that benefited massively, the many strange coincidences.

lol

You'll probably still be clinging to your lovely ideals when the USD is just about worthless, our economy is a shit storm, and a bunch of other fucked up legislation has continued the trend of taking away freedoms.

Oh, and BTW, I'm still in gif mode with you. I just felt the need to jump in here since I just got back on the intrawebs.

Now quote me and post some stuff that I'm probably not going to read unless I'm extremely bored.
 
i think that is an oversimplification. didnt really like the original argument, but also do not agree with that statement.

you can make so easy experiments with unpredictable outcomes, its almost silly. scientists normally dont do that and try to create complicated and non-complex systems

i cant find it now, but take this simple experiment (not the real thing but the closest pic i could find that has something to do with it)

AT0112-sm.jpg


its just three (metal) strips hinged together (they can only move left and right, not "3D"). you can practically never predict the movements of this system after you swing the lowest strip. you maybe could in a vacuum and no friction or whatever, but the minor influence of these elements causes a pretty controlled experiment to be unpredictable.

i do not necessarily agree with either one of you guys, but there is a lot of grey stuff inbetween.
 
that would depend on the relative predictability of the experiment. as feinhilastjsidfnos posted above, theres that one thats virtually unpredictable and random. in most cases though, if the test is repeated enough times to get a data set with a mean, the coincidences or "outlying" data points are averaged into a more general conclusion. thats the whole point of experimental tests, is to get a bunch of results and average them into something reliable and predictable.

im not even sure what this has to do with 9/11 anymore.
 
Bumping this because I had to do a debate on this for my history final.Here's some stuff I've pulled from my research for it.

There is some points I have I can't find evidence for but I know are true, those being that Bin Laden was a CIA tactician in some form (as in he received training from the CIA) and that we funded him during Bush Sr.'s term.

Here is the hard evidence:

1) Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. Jet fuel burns anywhere from 800-1200 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel melts at about 1400 degrees Fahrenheit. If you say that the fuel only needs to burn hot enough to weaken the steel, you're right. The only problem is that 200 degrees is a big deficit. Even the hottest burning jet fuel won't soften the steel enough.

2) Both towers collapsed into their own footprints. Why is this important? Because controlled demolitions are the only time a structure will collapse into it's own footprint. Even if the supports of the towers were weakened by the burning jet fuel to the point that they couldn't support their load, then one side would give and collapse first. This would cause it to fall on an angle, not straight down into it's own footprint.

3) World Trade Center Tower 7. Tower 7 is a strong piece of evidence that proves my point. Tower 7 is a building over 40 stories tall that collapsed (also into it's own footprint) during 9/11. It wasn't stuck by an air liner and was over 400 feet away from towers 1 and 2. It was also the only steel framed building in history to collapse from a fire. Other buildings such as the Mandarin-Oriental Hotel in Beijing have survived much more intense fires without collapse.









Mandarin-Oriental Hotel fire

url]


Tower 7 fire

url]


Somehow the hotel survived yet tower 7 fell? Seems logical.







 
Did you even read the other pages of your own thread? I'm almost certain that literally all of your "points" have been disproved
 
no because I dont have the time to go through. Im just saying what I found when I was doing my research. Nobody asked you to be a smartass
 
Oh jesus, this is why NS, and a good chunk of the country (and for that matter, the world) is fucking stupid. Your "hard evidence" has been debunked time and time again. When you have shitheads, such as yourself, that can't research worth a damn, the myth lives on.
 
for your #1.

First of all, those temperatures are in Celsius.

Secondly, jet fuel burning around 950 degrees would not melt the steel or even soften it. It would, however, transition the steel out of the pearlite phase and into the much weaker austenite phase. See phase diagram below:

Image137.jpg


Third, even if you don't believe the science, why would they bother fireproofing steel in major office buildings if it was unaffected by fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireproofing

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top