Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-11-2019, 09:00 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
This is nothing like what happened on 911.
What has?
  #52  
Old 09-12-2019, 12:09 AM
Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Let's sidestep the physics and math for a moment. One issue 9/11 Truthers have never answered is why the U.S. government (or whoever was nefarious enough to rig this thing) would want to knock down WTC7. What does knocking down the relatively-obscure, little-known building called WTC7 get them that knocking down the two big Twin Towers alone didn't?
To the conspiracy theory inclined, that the supposed motives are unfathomable is "evidence" of a conspiracy, it just "proves" how insidious and powerful the Forces of Evil TM are that they can obscure their actions to such degree.

It really boils down to the "thought" process of, we don't know how it was done or why, but that's the sort of thing THEY would do so it must have been THEM.

I would fully expect a Truther to argue, when pressed, that we don't know why they did it because "it" was what was covered up by demolishing that building.
  #53  
Old 09-12-2019, 01:56 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
This conspiracy theory is old enough to fight in the wars started because of 9/11.
__________________
"Until their much-needed total political extinction, you can expect the GOP to continue to take corporate money to systemically murder you and everyone you know."
- A. R. Moxon
  #54  
Old 09-12-2019, 07:33 AM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Explain this:

(4) Why wasn't the steel from the structures analyzed for explosives and why was it shipped to China for scrap rather than keeping for it for analysis of a crime beyond the government issued explanation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=LgYNPaO1rNY
I was flippant when I addressed this earlier. The scrap wasn't sent to China. Some of it is in Baltimore, right now, today ( https://baltimore.org/listings/attra...d-911-memorial ). If the government really did try to destroy the evidence, why leave 22-tons of evidence outside in Baltimore?

How about you repost your list every time someone debunks one of our claims? The we know what to concentrate on, and please never says #4 again. You now know that it is not true, so if you say that it is, you are saying something you know is wrong. Please don't forget in 364 days.
  #55  
Old 09-12-2019, 09:43 AM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
No, this isnít how this works.

You donít get to just nitpick the evidence if you want to rebut the official account. You have to provide your theory of what happened, addressing what appears to have occurred.

So, Iíll try again. If you want to imply or suggest that the buildings werenít destroyed by airplanes, what happened to those airplanes and the people onboard?
For 18 years I believed the official government narrative and believed that Truthers were deranged individuals, then I decided to take the time to hear Truther arguments. They have some very disturbing points to make that resonate with me. Some things they say may be wrong or exaggerated or twisted to support their overall beliefs, but I have seen enough to say the official narrative is not correct. I joined this discussion to get a rebuttal to what I have recently learned. It is quite shameful that people feel the need to mock me when I just want a civil discussion.

I do not believe airplane with the amount of fuel they carry could destroy buildings in the manner we witnessed. All three buildings collapsed as if they were in a controlled demolition. The Twin Towers has a massive asbestos issue and the cost of abatement could have ruined the owner Larry Silverstein. Some have suggested Larry Silverstein conspired with government forces. Yeah, it sounds crazy but it would not be the first time a landlord engaged in murder and arson.

I do not know what happened to the people in the planes, but I would suggest that entities that would create a "New Pearl Harbor" that resulted in two wars, hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths, and 4.5 trillions in costs are not above anything.
  #56  
Old 09-12-2019, 09:52 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
For 18 years I believed the official government narrative and believed that Truthers were deranged individuals, then I decided to take the time to hear Truther arguments. They have some very disturbing points to make that resonate with me. Some things they say may be wrong or exaggerated or twisted to support their overall beliefs, but I have seen enough to say the official narrative is not correct. I joined this discussion to get a rebuttal to what I have recently learned. It is quite shameful that people feel the need to mock me when I just want a civil discussion.

I do not believe airplane with the amount of fuel they carry could destroy buildings in the manner we witnessed. All three buildings collapsed as if they were in a controlled demolition. The Twin Towers has a massive asbestos issue and the cost of abatement could have ruined the owner Larry Silverstein. Some have suggested Larry Silverstein conspired with government forces. Yeah, it sounds crazy but it would not be the first time a landlord engaged in murder and arson.

I do not know what happened to the people in the planes, but I would suggest that entities that would create a "New Pearl Harbor" that resulted in two wars, hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths, and 4.5 trillions in costs are not above anything.
You need look no further for the answer of why people don't take you seriously.

There is no serious discussion to be had because none of your arguments are grounded on the smallest semblance of fact. You watched 4.5hours of lies. You believed those lies without critical thought.

Where would one even begin trying to reason with your absurd understanding of events?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #57  
Old 09-12-2019, 09:58 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,530
Is there a list of some/all of the previous threads on this subject?
And would it be possible to sticky the list to the top of the forum(s)?

Last edited by Czarcasm; 09-12-2019 at 09:59 AM.
  #58  
Old 09-12-2019, 10:25 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
For 18 years I believed the official government narrative and believed that Truthers were deranged individuals, then I decided to take the time to hear Truther arguments. They have some very disturbing points to make that resonate with me. Some things they say may be wrong or exaggerated or twisted to support their overall beliefs, but I have seen enough to say the official narrative is not correct.
And we have seen enough of your argument to say that your justification for that conclusion is not well-founded.

Quote:
I joined this discussion to get a rebuttal to what I have recently learned. It is quite shameful that people feel the need to mock me when I just want a civil discussion.
Skywatcher has rebutted all your points, and you have responded with more "faulty assumptions based on bad information", to quote a different poster. And most of us have been around and around these theories enough to know that there is nothing that will sway you from a position you have not reasoned yourself into.

But consider: you have asked several questions. When a rebuttal is provided, do you a) reconsider your position based on new information; b) simply ignore the rebuttal and restate the already-rebutted point; c) move on to a new talking point without acknowledging that the rebuttal of the previous one has already put a serious dent in your theory; or d) b and c, but never a?

If the answer is b, c or d, there is no point in either you asking or us answering your questions.

Quote:
do not believe airplane with the amount of fuel they carry could destroy buildings in the manner we witnessed.
Neither science nor reality are reliant on your beliefs.

Quote:
All three buildings collapsed as if they were in a controlled demolition.
No they didn't. At all. And that's not even getting into the whole thing about:

1) If they were controlled demolitions, why did no one notice the rather sizable bundles of explosives and wiring attached around the building beforehand?
2) How did they know exactly where the planes would hit, given that the collapses started from those points?
2) If you were going to make it look like you were bringing down the buildings with planes, why bother with a controlled demolition at all?

Quote:
The Twin Towers has a massive asbestos issue and the cost of abatement could have ruined the owner Larry Silverstein. Some have suggested Larry Silverstein conspired with government forces. Yeah, it sounds crazy but it would not be the first time a landlord engaged in murder and arson.
While that is a cool story, bro, it remains purely speculative, and is evidence of nothing.

Quote:
I do not know what happened to the people in the planes, but I would suggest that entities that would create a "New Pearl Harbor" that resulted in two wars, hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths, and 4.5 trillions in costs are not above anything.
Again, that is a ludicrous statement. Yes, governments are more than capable of mass murder, but you cannot extrapolate from there to "Therefore it follows that the government killed JFK/vanished hundreds of airplane passengers on 9/11/is grinding babies up into soylent green". Also, there were literally body parts found scattered around lower Manhattan.

The stupidest thing about these Truther conspiracy theories is this: they would require the cooperation and ongoing silence of literally thousands of people including government, military and private individuals and the international media, plus a level of technology not generally known to exist, to pull off a plan so convoluted that it would be virtually impossible to pull off correctly and without discovery even if it were true, to achieve a vague and undefined goal.

Conversely, even if you want to assume the government was responsible for planning and facilitating 9/11, a plan in which a small group of terrorists hijack some planes and fly them into buildings would require maybe two or three dozen conspirators including the ones on the planes, some cash, some student visas and a couple of boxcutters, which is a far more plausible plan by several orders of magnitude. If William of Ockham were alive, he'd be bitchslapping you right now.

Last edited by Gyrate; 09-12-2019 at 10:26 AM.
  #59  
Old 09-12-2019, 10:26 AM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
There is no serious discussion to be had because none of your arguments are grounded on the smallest semblance of fact. You watched 4.5hours of lies. You believed those lies without critical thought.
This is really the correct answer.

However, why don't you post your math? I mean, we have planes going into the towers (which seems a weird thing to do if you were planning to demolish them anyway, but whatever) and airplane fuel undoubtedly burning in there. So lets see your numbers for how the steel support structure could still endure, with the weight of all the floors above it as an ongoing static load.

Also, you are saying "The lower levels of each building should have at the very least slowed the progression of the collapse." Show us the maths. Once the upper mass is accelerating, do the lower floors provide sufficient resistance to slow them noticeably? I can catch a pound of iron if its dropped at a meters height. Think anyone could catch it after its fallen a mile, and is traveling at 650 km/h?

I think a lot of the problem is, people do not intuitively understand how things scale. They expect stuff to work the same at very large scales as the do at a human-scale. Just one single thing: when you build something that high, you got to provide structural support. But structural support is not weightless. It adds to the weight. So the more support you provide, the more weight you need to provide support for. That means that for something really tall, you end up with the weight resting on it ratcheting up much faster than you'd expect as you go down in levels. Now, to a degree, you can scale it. You add support at a faster rate as your building grows. But some thing do not scale. Certain properties of your materials stay the same regardless of how much material there is. Bulk modulus, ductility, melting point, atomic bond strength, tensile strength, etc, etc.

This is why we don't have a space elevator.

So at large scales they don't really act like you'd intuitivly expect from the ways you've seen stuff behave at smaller scales.

Last edited by Grim Render; 09-12-2019 at 10:29 AM.
  #60  
Old 09-12-2019, 10:27 AM
Hampshire is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 11,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
I do not believe airplane with the amount of fuel they carry could destroy buildings in the manner we witnessed. All three buildings collapsed as if they were in a controlled demolition.
Just because you don't "believe" it, or can't "imagine" it, or "conceive" it doesn't mean it didn't happen. People are quick to dismiss things just because they can't comprehend them. Hell, I have no idea of how an iPhone does all the stuff it does and can't even begin to comprehend how microchips work. But they do and the iPhone certainly does exist.
And it's amazing how all of these experts came out of the woodwork who know the visual difference between a controlled demolition and one cause by a structural failure on the 95th floor. Their "expertise" seems to be that they saw a youtube video of the Vegas Riveria being demolished and compared it to buildings being destroyed in a Michael Bay movie.
  #61  
Old 09-12-2019, 10:34 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,807

I forgot I wanted to do this...


Quote:
Originally Posted by namahoo View Post
Hello all,

The long-awaited study from the University of Alaska/Fairbanks was out a few days back, with appropriate media coverage. But if you missed it, here's a heads up.

They seem to rule out NIST's proposed collapse mechanism and their simulation of simultaneous failure of all columns is uncannily like the real-life collapse.

What do you make of it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
No, what do you make of it?
This? Why, I can make a hat or a brooch or a pterodactyl...
  #62  
Old 09-12-2019, 10:44 AM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
So, Iíll try again. If you want to imply or suggest that the buildings werenít destroyed by airplanes, what happened to those airplanes and the people onboard?
Well, black holes seem to be the go-to theory for mysterious airplane disappearances....
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #63  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:16 AM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
This is really the correct answer.

I can catch a pound of iron if its dropped at a meters height. Think anyone could catch it after its fallen a mile, and is traveling at 650 km/h?
Back in the 80s there was a TV show that dropped a football (American) from either a hot-air balloon or a blimp that was floating above a stadium. A footballer player (it might have been Mean Joe Greene or Rosie Grier as they both did a lot of cameo work outside of football playing) was standing in the end zone to catch the dropped ball. As I recall, it was very difficult to catch a football dropped from a few hundred feet, even for a person whose profession was catching footballs. The show may have been That's Incredible, but could have also been 321 Contact or even the Great Space Coaster.

Perhaps the show was part of a larger government conspiracy to validate your analogy on this thread, thereby debunking the 9/11 Truth movement.
  #64  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:19 AM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
Well, black holes seem to be the go-to theory for mysterious airplane disappearances....
I prefer to think the black holes are time tunnels to repopulate the future. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097883...nm_flmg_act_91
  #65  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:46 AM
Saint Cad is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I've never understood why this building fascinates the 9/11 Truther CT types, to be honest. There really aren't any mysteries as to why the building collapsed. Basically, a ton of building material fell on it from the other WTC tower collapses (BURNING debris at that), and due to water main breaks and, kind of other priorities happening the building was left burning all day without fire fighters really doing much (read: anything).
So you "claim" that having tons of "material" fall on a building that then "burns" all day is enough to make it collapse? Impossible. It was made out of steel and steel doesn't burn. Rosie O'Donnell was able to prove that without "degrees", "research" or even "intelligence".
__________________
When I was a boy, a mere lad, A FAERIE APPEARED UNTO ME AND TOLD ME I WOULD BE BOTH POPE AND KING! But Ö I am a bastard. And a pretender.

-Richard Hariss
  #66  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:56 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,457
Sigh.

LAZombie, WRT your earlier bullet point question, this has all be addressed, ad nausium, in previous threads, which is why no one is seriously trying to engage you. If this were the 1st time they had all come up...or, frankly, the 10th time...someone probably would. But you are like the 100th (or more) Truther to ask these vital questions. No one is going to really bother answering something that has been this done to death.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post

I do not believe airplane with the amount of fuel they carry could destroy buildings in the manner we witnessed. All three buildings collapsed as if they were in a controlled demolition. The Twin Towers has a massive asbestos issue and the cost of abatement could have ruined the owner Larry Silverstein. Some have suggested Larry Silverstein conspired with government forces. Yeah, it sounds crazy but it would not be the first time a landlord engaged in murder and arson.

I do not know what happened to the people in the planes, but I would suggest that entities that would create a "New Pearl Harbor" that resulted in two wars, hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths, and 4.5 trillions in costs are not above anything.
Here is the thing. You clearly don't understand a lot about even the basics of what happened on 9/11 (let alone things like structural engineering or materials science). That's cool...no reason why you should or would, really, as it's not what you do. But the folks who put together the really compelling 'evidence' videos you have obviously watched are basically using your ignorance to spin you a tale that SEEMS right but, if you actually knew much about this stuff really falls flat. Take what you say here as just an example (and this is off the top of my head and from memory, or nightmare of doing this same stupid dance for years on this board):

Quote:
I do not believe airplane with the amount of fuel they carry could destroy buildings in the manner we witnessed. All three buildings collapsed as if they were in a controlled demolition. The Twin Towers has a massive asbestos issue and the cost of abatement could have ruined the owner Larry Silverstein.
Leaving aside your belief, and assuming you are talking about the tower buildings that were hit by air craft, the thing is, yes...they DID have all of their load bearing beams sheathed in an asbestos foam. That's code, and they definitely had that. The key there is 'had', however. You need to take into account that they were hit, at high speed by large, fully loaded air craft flying at speed. This event essentially scoured those beams of most of their protection, leaving them exposed. And while they did that, they also dumped their fully loaded fuel tanks into the mix, starting a multi-floor fire on now unprotected steal beams that have also been weakened just by the impact.

This is why, if you actually watch the videos done by engineering and architectural groups who are not ignorant or have an agenda, the collapse starts in exactly these areas. And it's not 'simultaneous' when you slow it down. The collapse starts as a small shift in the impact areas where the fires were. When you slow it down, and if you are actually watching for it, you can see that part of the 1st tower to go slumps. But we are talking an incredible amount of weight here, so as soon as part of the main structure fails the rest fails too, since it's ALSO weakened. So, it LOOKS like it's 'simultaneous', but when you slow things down it really isn't.

And this is just one small piece of what happened and what you are being lied to or deliberately deceived over. We could...hell, we HAVE...gone over each and every one of your points, and lots you didn't mention (gods...lots is such an understatement) in excruciating detail with previous Truther types who came in here with exactly the same message and equally convinced. And equally wrong. There really are just no mysteries about why each building collapsed. WTC 7 is really cut and dried and it's laughable that folks think there is some mystery about it as it's probably the most straight forward of the bunch, needing the least amount of critical thinking or even basic understanding. The other ones you kind of have to understand a bit about how the steel beams were stripped of protection, what the actual dynamic of a large, fully loaded air craft flying at high speed through a structure like the twin towers does on impact and moving forward, how the actual structure in the towers, especially the load bearing ones worked and how and why they would fail in the conditions that happened and a ton of other stuff. It IS a bit complicated. But WTC 7? Naw...that one is easy.

Anyway, that's why you aren't getting a lot of engagement on your questions. If you are REALLY interested, I suggest doing Google searches on things like 'debunking 9/11 Truth'. Popular Science did a really good series of articles on this (if you don't want to trust the gubbermint) that are probably still out there somewhere, as well as a bunch of other groups. Or you could search for old threads on this board as the links to many, MANY of these articles and data have been linked in.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 09-12-2019 at 11:58 AM.
  #67  
Old 09-12-2019, 12:11 PM
namahoo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9
Hello all again,

I read through the replies so far, but could find nothing particularly enlightening re this new 2019 Univ of Alaska study. People seem set in their ways.

Sorry for not including a link in the OP. Here's a couple of them, to a short summary and to a longer presentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd7tqpwdlpQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN8444tk_RE

Looking forward to your feedback. Cheers!
  #68  
Old 09-12-2019, 12:17 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,374
My aunt is a 9/11 Truther. She also believes a variety of other conspiracy theories.

Her logic goes like this: If she can find even just one flaw in your argument, then your entire argument is bunk. But somehow, all of her flaws in her theories ought to go unchallenged.
  #69  
Old 09-12-2019, 12:19 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by namahoo View Post
Hello all again,

I read through the replies so far, but could find nothing particularly enlightening re this new 2019 Univ of Alaska study. People seem set in their ways.

Sorry for not including a link in the OP. Here's a couple of them, to a short summary and to a longer presentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd7tqpwdlpQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN8444tk_RE

Looking forward to your feedback. Cheers!
Speaking of people set in their ways, you have yet to tell us what you think.
Looking forward to your feedback.
  #70  
Old 09-12-2019, 12:25 PM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Speaking of people set in their ways, you have yet to tell us what you think.
Looking forward to your feedback.
You forgot say Cheers!
  #71  
Old 09-12-2019, 12:28 PM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Explain this:

(3) WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane. Why would normal office furnishings and material cause such a massive structural collapse?

This is a fundamentally dishonest question. WTC1 and 2 were hit by planes, and yet, you still think their collapses were suspicious. This question is intended to suggest an open-mindedness that Truthers don't actually have.


Quote:
(6) How could there be molten steel under ruins three months after the collapse?

And this is a good question for you, as well. How would an explosive controlled demolition produce this effect? Disregarding the fact that the claims of "molten steel" are all completely unfounded, if such evidence actually did exist, it is fatal to most of the truther hypotheses as well, because it calls into question all their "evidence" for controlled demolition and explosives.

Assuming for a moment that you're not a dyed-in-wool CTist, but are just honestly seeking answers, don't you think that the people who created and promulgated a list containing such dishonest, misleading elements should be held to account, and be subject to your scrutiny?
  #72  
Old 09-12-2019, 01:03 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hampshire View Post
Their "expertise" seems to be that they saw a youtube video of the Vegas Riveria being demolished and compared it to buildings being destroyed in a Michael Bay movie.
And the only demolition expert who the Movement could find to agree with them disagreed on 1 & 2 (not controlled demolitions due to the fire) and only said that 7 was a controlled demolition because he wasn't told it was 7 until after he said it was controlled.

Stands to reason, with 1 & 2 not being controlled demolitions due to fire, then neither could have 7.
  #73  
Old 09-12-2019, 01:13 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 22,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by namahoo View Post
I read through the replies so far, but could find nothing particularly enlightening re this new 2019 Univ of Alaska study.
It's exactly as valuable as the 2017 study by the same researcher - not at all.
  #74  
Old 09-12-2019, 01:18 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
The Twin Towers has a massive asbestos issue and the cost of abatement could have ruined the owner Larry Silverstein. Some have suggested Larry Silverstein conspired with government forces. Yeah, it sounds crazy but it would not be the first time a landlord engaged in murder and arson.
Quote:
Robert Szantner, a principle of Minoru Yamasaki Associates, the architectural firm that designed the World Trade Center, said asbestos was used in the construction.

"But the Port Authority, once they discovered that asbestos was a problem, put together a remediation program, that through the course of many years was eliminating most of the asbestos in the building," he told UPI. "However, there may be some minor areas that hadn't yet been completely upgraded to new fireproofing on the structural steel. So that should be the only remaining asbestos in the building. In proportion it should be fairly nominal."

Szantner said most of the dust seen in the air is gypsum board and pulverized concrete.
Cite.

That doesn't sound like such a massive problem to me - probably not massive enough to engineer a conspiracy to crash two airliners and murder thousands. YMMV.

Regards,
Shodan
  #75  
Old 09-12-2019, 01:41 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
But WTC 7? Naw...that one is easy.
It is so easy but you still cannot explain it.

I refer you to the video above from the University of Alaska that states fire as well as debris and heat from WTC 1 and 2 did not cause the WTC 7 to collapse.
  #76  
Old 09-12-2019, 01:43 PM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
For 18 years I believed the official government narrative and believed that Truthers were deranged individuals, then I decided to take the time to hear Truther arguments. They have some very disturbing points to make that resonate with me. Some things they say may be wrong or exaggerated or twisted to support their overall beliefs, but I have seen enough to say the official narrative is not correct. I joined this discussion to get a rebuttal to what I have recently learned. It is quite shameful that people feel the need to mock me when I just want a civil discussion.

I do not believe airplane with the amount of fuel they carry could destroy buildings in the manner we witnessed. All three buildings collapsed as if they were in a controlled demolition. The Twin Towers has a massive asbestos issue and the cost of abatement could have ruined the owner Larry Silverstein. Some have suggested Larry Silverstein conspired with government forces. Yeah, it sounds crazy but it would not be the first time a landlord engaged in murder and arson.

I do not know what happened to the people in the planes, but I would suggest that entities that would create a "New Pearl Harbor" that resulted in two wars, hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths, and 4.5 trillions in costs are not above anything.
So you watched some Truther videos that "resonated" with you. Did you then check out the sources debunking those claims? Here's a good one. Read it and then get back to us.
  #77  
Old 09-12-2019, 02:08 PM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Cite.

That doesn't sound like such a massive problem to me - probably not massive enough to engineer a conspiracy to crash two airliners and murder thousands. YMMV.

Regards,
Shodan

Indeed, we know that asbestos abatement at the WTC would cost a lot of money, because they'd already done the bulk of the work:

Quote:
The ruling ends the trial phase of a decade-long court battle that began when the Port Authority sued its property insurers in 1991 in a New Jersey state court.

The suit sought recovery of the Port Authority's huge expenses of removing asbestos from hundreds of properties ranging from the enormous World Trade Center complex-which represented more than $200 million of the abatement costs-to bridge and tunnel toll booths.

The Asbestos Hypothesis would have us believe they destroyed the buildings to avoid paying for work they'd already paid for. That's generally not how insurance scams work.
  #78  
Old 09-12-2019, 02:16 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie
I do not believe airplane with the amount of fuel they carry could destroy buildings in the manner we witnessed.
The planes were scheduled to fly cross-country, and had about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel aboard. How much do you think it would take, and what is the basis for your belief?
Quote:
All three buildings collapsed as if they were in a controlled demolition.
No, actually they didn't. Typically in a demolition, the windows blow out, which wasn't observed to happen.

I was working for a company whose office was hit by the second plane, and none of them noticed anyone scurrying around planting explosives beforehand. I assume you know that buildings of that size fall down rather than sideways.

And again, how did they know which floors the airplanes were going to hit so they could plant the explosives only there? That's some pretty fancy flying from amateurs who don't even know how to land.

Also interested in hearing your response to the asbestos thing, if possible.

Regards,
Shodan
  #79  
Old 09-12-2019, 02:56 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 22,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
I refer you to the video above from the University of Alaska that states fire as well as debris and heat from WTC 1 and 2 did not cause the WTC 7 to collapse.
And we don't accept the report as believable because of the funding, the lack of expertise by the authors, and their previously demonstrated bias. If accepted experts confirm their results than you'll have something. But right now all you have is an unreliable report that contradicts a reliable one.
  #80  
Old 09-12-2019, 03:07 PM
enalzi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,178
I don't get why CTers have to make everything so needless complex. Why not just say "[Insert nefarious group here] paid terrorists to fly planes into buildings."
  #81  
Old 09-12-2019, 03:11 PM
ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Oh, I'll bite:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Explain this:

(1) Why did all three buildings collapse symmetrically as in a controlled demolition?
As in, straight down? it's called gravity.
Quote:
(2) Why did all three buildings collapse at free fall rates of speed ?
What makes you think they did? Look at the videos.
Quote:
(3) WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane. Why would normal office furnishings and material cause such a massive structural collapse?
A helluva lot of debris being blown sideways by 1 and 2 during their collapses hit 7.
Quote:
(4) Why wasn't the steel from the structures analyzed for explosives and why was it shipped to China for scrap rather than keeping for it for analysis of a crime beyond the government issued explanation?
Because there was no reason to analyze it. Most of the debris was actually sent to a landfill on Staten Island. Or are you saying the Chinese were in on the asbestos-insurance scam?
Quote:
(5) What were the explosions that many people heard?
The ones from the grassy knoll? There were a lot of sudden, sharp sounds from big things breaking during the collapses. Which are you characterizing as explosions, and why?
Quote:
(6) How could there be molten steel under ruins three months after the collapse?
There couldn't. Molten and re-hardened steel, sure, plenty of that. Molten because of the jet-fuel fire, re-hardened as it cooled off. Question for you: Do you think explosives cause mostly melting, or fracture?
Quote:
(7) How did the fire get so "bad" in a relatively modern structure that would surely pass code?
Code does not and still does not require surviving a plane crash.
Quote:
(8) Why has no other skyscraper collapsed the way these three buildings did?
What other skyscrapers have been hit by airlines full of fuel?
  #82  
Old 09-12-2019, 03:15 PM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 294
All this talk of explosive residue testing (or a lack of) for WTC steel makes me wonder... when Kennedy was assassinated (either one), did they test for arsenic? I mean, how do we know it wasnít poisoning that finished them off?
  #83  
Old 09-12-2019, 03:30 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
It is so easy but you still cannot explain it.

I refer you to the video above from the University of Alaska that states fire as well as debris and heat from WTC 1 and 2 did not cause the WTC 7 to collapse.
Except I DID explain, in broad terms why it collapsed. It's pretty simple, really. Debris, including flaming debris from the North/WTC 1(IIRC) tower crushed the building and took out key structural elements in the south facing facade as well as (again IIRC) on the 5th - 8th floors. In addition, said debris set the building on fire, including things like generator bunkers, but all sort of other of the myriad things that are flammable in buildings (paint, cleaning supplies, paper, furniture, etc etc etc). This fire was not able to be responded too...including the building fire suppression system, which was out ALSO knocked out...and since it wasn't along the same priority (as well as the whole 'nothing we can do with the water lines cut' thingy) it was basically left burning. All day. So, a structure that was already weakened by having, literally, tons of debris hitting it, and a building that had a significant portion of it's main structural elements which were in the facade destroyed by said debris was then left to burn, uncontrolled, for again literally hours. It's a wonder it actually stayed up as long as it did, really.

I don't need to refer to any video or even bother to look this stuff up again as I've been over this multiple times. The debris from WTC 1 DID LEAD to the collapse. It didn't cause it directly, since it took almost a full day for it to happen (IIRC, WTC 7 finally gave up the ghost and collapsed around 5pm that afternoon...THINK about that and consider that the first started by the debris were burning for all that time, unchecked). But it was the ultimate cause, and anyone saying it wasn't is either lying or doesn't know what they are talking about. End of story.

I understand that you aren't going to accept any of this. You aren't. You don't care that the building burned uncontrollably for nearly a full day, or what the ramifications of that are. You don't care that key structural elements in the facade and even in the core were outright cut out or severely weakened by tons of debris falling on it from WTC 1. You want there to be some big mystery or coverup or whatever. But there really isn't. It comes down to physics, material science and, well, just reality in the end.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 09-12-2019 at 03:33 PM.
  #84  
Old 09-12-2019, 04:35 PM
CurtC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
A helluva lot of debris being blown sideways by 1 and 2 during their collapses hit 7.
It's been a few years, but the biggest impact damage to WTC7 was due to a very large chunk of core columns from the North Tower toppling over and smacking WTC7.

With both the North and South Towers, the perimeter area collapsed quickly, but left behind and still standing, large sections of the massive core columns, which stood for a few seconds more before they fell apart. The core columns were strong vertically, but relied on connections to the tube structure of the perimeter columns to keep them upright. Once the perimeter was gone, the core columns failed, and one or more of those toppled to the north and hit WTC7, leaving a giant gouge all the way down its south face.
  #85  
Old 09-12-2019, 07:08 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,030
I guess CUNY (whose building at 30 West Broadway was rendered unusable by a large portion of 7 falling on it) and the congregation of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church at 155 Cedar Street (literally crushed by a large portion of 2 falling on it) were "in on it"? If so, why would CUNY have bothered with a full renovation which was nearly complete when the building became unusable?
  #86  
Old 09-12-2019, 07:54 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The planes were scheduled to fly cross-country, and had about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel aboard. How much do you think it would take, and what is the basis for your belief?No, actually they didn't. Typically in a demolition, the windows blow out, which wasn't observed to happen.

I was working for a company whose office was hit by the second plane, and none of them noticed anyone scurrying around planting explosives beforehand. I assume you know that buildings of that size fall down rather than sideways.

And again, how did they know which floors the airplanes were going to hit so they could plant the explosives only there? That's some pretty fancy flying from amateurs who don't even know how to land.

Also interested in hearing your response to the asbestos thing, if possible.

Regards,
Shodan
Hi Shodan,

Only small percentage of that 10000 gallons of fuel would have been available to burn the building. Certainly some evaporated or splattered away. I have not seen anyone state that jet fuel is great for burning steel buildings. I do not even know if jet fuel would burn in such a way as facilitate fires in the buildings.

If this were a building in some Third World country, I might accept "the fires did it explanation". But modern buildings have redundant measures to stop fires from spreading.

Come on, it's absurd to think the explosives were placed after the planes struck. If this was a controlled demolition, it was done before. There are theories that the 19 Hijackers were patsies and that others actually flew the planes.

In a situation such as 911, I don't assume anything really. I would think it would be hard to predict how a building struck by a plane would collapse. However, the University of Alaska seems pretty adamant and NIST models predict an asymmetrical collapse.

As for the asbestos issue that I raised, I was simply repeating a theory raised by other commentators. Thank you for clarifying the issue and setting me straight. However, if there was asbestos abatement, the fire retardant protections that took the place of the asbestos should have protected the steel supports even more since they were newer and recently installed. This bolsters the idea that fire did not bring down these buildings.

LAZ
  #87  
Old 09-12-2019, 08:09 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Only small percentage of that 10000 gallons of fuel would have been available to burn the building. Certainly some evaporated or splattered away. I have not seen anyone state that jet fuel is great for burning steel buildings. I do not even know if jet fuel would burn in such a way as facilitate fires in the buildings.
What about all the office furniture that was in those buildings?

An ordinary furniture fire has brought down a steel-framed building approximately the same size as one Tower floor. Extrapolate that one floor to the Towers, what would such a loss of integrity have meant for the floors above and below?

Last edited by Skywatcher; 09-12-2019 at 08:12 PM.
  #88  
Old 09-12-2019, 08:20 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
...

Come on, it's absurd to think the explosives were placed after the planes struck. If this was a controlled demolition, it was done before. There are theories that the 19 Hijackers were patsies and that others actually flew the planes.

...
There is so much wrong with your whole post, but I only have the patience to comment on this part.

I absolutely agree it would be absurd to think explosives were placed after they struck. But nobody anywhere here has ever said that (or did I miss it).

I also find it absurd that there were any explosives planted at all. And if there were no explosives, then what does that leave? A plane strike and fire. A fire suppression system, if undamaged designed to keep small fires from becoming large fires. Like if someone's cigarette in a trashcan or burned popcorn. Not thousands of gallons of fuel and the massive amount of heat that come from a big jet disintegrating at 500+ mph.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #89  
Old 09-12-2019, 08:25 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
I also find it absurd that there were any explosives planted at all.
Do did the only demolition expert the Movement could find to agree with them on anything.
  #90  
Old 09-12-2019, 08:42 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,030
Another thing to keep in mind is that much of each Tower's structural integrity was in the roof. Once the roof was gone, so was a whole bunch of stability. This can easily be seen with the collapse of 2, the top floors initially tilted toward the hole.

Last edited by Skywatcher; 09-12-2019 at 08:46 PM.
  #91  
Old 09-12-2019, 08:47 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Only small percentage of that 10000 gallons of fuel would have been available to burn the building. Certainly some evaporated or splattered away. I have not seen anyone state that jet fuel is great for burning steel buildings. I do not even know if jet fuel would burn in such a way as facilitate fires in the buildings.
You're awfully sure about things you admit to not knowing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
If this were a building in some Third World country, I might accept "the fires did it explanation". But modern buildings have redundant measures to stop fires from spreading.
There is nothing it the building code that talks about prevention of fire burning at these high temperatures. Additionally, an airliner is going to destroy most if not all of the infrastructure that prevents fires, on impact. How does a fire barrier withstand catastrophic impact of that magnitude?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Come on, it's absurd to think the explosives were placed after the planes struck. If this was a controlled demolition, it was done before. There are theories that the 19 Hijackers were patsies and that others actually flew the planes.
Before what? By whom? For what reason? Who were those others that flew the planes? What difference does it make who flew the planes? Did planes fly into buildings or didn't they?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
In a situation such as 911, I don't assume anything really. I would think it would be hard to predict how a building struck by a plane would collapse. However, the University of Alaska seems pretty adamant and NIST models predict an asymmetrical collapse.
Instead of speculating from 'alternative facts', why not actually read the NIST FAQ that addresses all these issues in a way that actually explains what happened. Or, you know, just keep rollin' with the c.t. bullshit videos.

Strap in:
Full set of final NIST reports
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 09-12-2019 at 08:50 PM.
  #92  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:02 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Explain this:

(6) How could there be molten steel under ruins three months after the collapse?
There could not and there was not.

http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

Claims of "molten steel" are using casual language. Note the number of references to "red hot" metals. Molten steel is pale green.
  #93  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:41 AM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Hi Shodan,

Only small percentage of that 10000 gallons of fuel would have been available to burn the building. Certainly some evaporated or splattered away. I have not seen anyone state that jet fuel is great for burning steel buildings. I do not even know if jet fuel would burn in such a way as facilitate fires in the buildings.
Jet fuel has to carry some rather heavy planes a long way. And that means its really energy dense. Meaning, it burns hot!

I don't really see how much fuel could "evaporate" or "splatter away" in that kind of inferno.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
If this were a building in some Third World country, I might accept "the fires did it explanation". But modern buildings have redundant measures to stop fires from spreading.
Not after a plane smashes through a building at umpteen miles per hour they don't.
Also, remember that the steel support structure is carrying the weight of all the floors above it. Heat weakens the strength of steel. More heat weakens it more. Every smith ever knows that. Its even an expression: Strike while the iron is hot.
  #94  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:54 AM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Explain this:

(1) Why did all three buildings collapse symmetrically as in a controlled demolition?
Why wouldn't they? How did you think they would collapse?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
(2) Why did all three buildings collapse at free fall rates of speed ?
Why wouldn't they? What kind of speed should they collapse at?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
(4) Why wasn't the steel from the structures analyzed for explosives and why was it shipped to China for scrap rather than keeping for it for analysis of a crime beyond the government issued explanation?
Why would it be analysed for explosives? Was in analysed for the bitemarks of goblins? And as people have shown, it was hardly shipped off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
(5) What were the explosions that many people heard?
What kind of noises do you think towers like that will make when the concrete starts to shatter?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
(6) How could there be molten steel under ruins three months after the collapse?
There couldn't and isn't. Why would you think there would be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
(7) How did the fire get so "bad" in a relatively modern structure that would surely pass code?
Because an airplane hit it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
(8) Why has no other skyscraper collapsed the way these three buildings did?
Because fully fueled passenger airplanes haven't hit them.

What you are doing here is set out a lot of "why did", like why did the towers fall at freefall speed, why did it look like a controlled demolition, without setting out why you think that is wrong and how you think the towers should behave.

Tell us how you think it should have happened and how that differs from the real events.
  #95  
Old 09-13-2019, 04:02 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
When a rebuttal is provided, do you a) reconsider your position based on new information; b) simply ignore the rebuttal and restate the already-rebutted point; c) move on to a new talking point without acknowledging that the rebuttal of the previous one has already put a serious dent in your theory; or d) b and c, but never a?

If the answer is b, c or d, there is no point in either you asking or us answering your questions.
So based on subsequent replies, the answer is d). Got it.
  #96  
Old 09-13-2019, 05:33 AM
namahoo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
The stupidest thing about these Truther conspiracy theories is this: they would require the cooperation and ongoing silence of literally thousands of people[...]
This is provably false.

For the longest time I worked under the same assumption. Too large to keep secret. Once I realized that it *could* have been pulled off by a fairly limited number of people, then I began taking those theories a lot more seriously.

One reporter who's been putting forward a sketch of how it *could* have been done is one Christopher Bollyn. I'm sure I'll be told he kicks puppies or something. Ad hominem seems to be pervasive here.

Keep plugging away. Cheers!
  #97  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:01 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by namahoo View Post
This is provably false.

For the longest time I worked under the same assumption. Too large to keep secret. Once I realized that it *could* have been pulled off by a fairly limited number of people, then I began taking those theories a lot more seriously.

One reporter who's been putting forward a sketch of how it *could* have been done is one Christopher Bollyn. I'm sure I'll be told he kicks puppies or something. Ad hominem seems to be pervasive here.

Keep plugging away. Cheers!
Now we know where you actually stand on this matter.
  #98  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:16 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by namahoo View Post
This is provably false.

For the longest time I worked under the same assumption. Too large to keep secret. Once I realized that it *could* have been pulled off by a fairly limited number of people, then I began taking those theories a lot more seriously.

One reporter who's been putting forward a sketch of how it *could* have been done is one Christopher Bollyn.
So I'm sure you can summarize his hypothetical, since you find it compelling. Who would be involved in this "fairly limited number of people"?

A link would also be helpful, but note that merely linking other people's YouTube videos is not in itself an argument.

Also, I have no information on Bollyn's treatment of puppies one way or the other.

Quote:
I'm sure I'll be told he kicks puppies or something. Ad hominem seems to be pervasive here.!
Look at the banner. See the bit about "fighting ignorance"? We tend to have a low tolerance for people who promote it, and a lower tolerance for people who wilfully ignore evidence. We have been around and around the Truther conspiracy theories ad nauseum for the better part of two decades. They don't get any more convincing, and the vast majority of Truthers appear to be arguing in questionable faith. Look at LAZombie's "You can't explain why WTC7 fell" statement even after it was already explained, and his continuing to ignore the even more substantive explanations afterwards. Why should we even bother answering the questions, when the responses merely get ignored?

So you want to present a new study. You're making an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence just for a start. Instead, you linked to a YouTube video, which is not a credible source for anything, and the one bit of detail you provided - about WTC7 collapsing in a way that could not have happened without deliberate intervention - is demonstrably false. In addition, pointing out that the author of the paper is not actually a "forensic structure engineer" and that the people who commissioned the report have a specific agenda they commissioned the report to support is not "ad hominem"; it is entirely germane to assessing the weight to be given to the report.

You asked us "what we make of it". We told you. You didn't like it. You are welcome to put forth a robust counterargument - indeed, it would make a nice change - but don't blame us if we don't immediately fall to our knees aghast at the brilliance of it, like the subjects of some secular Jack Chick tract.
  #99  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:16 AM
Sparky812 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Great White North
Posts: 4,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
For 18 years I believed the official government narrative and believed that Truthers were deranged individuals, then I decided to take the time to hear Truther arguments. They have some very disturbing points to make that resonate with me. Some things they say may be wrong or exaggerated or twisted to support their overall beliefs, but I have seen enough to say the official narrative is not correct. I joined this discussion to get a rebuttal to what I have recently learned. It is quite shameful that people feel the need to mock me when I just want a civil discussion.

All three buildings collapsed as if they were in a controlled demolition. The Twin Towers has a massive asbestos issue and the cost of abatement could have ruined the owner Larry Silverstein. Some have suggested Larry Silverstein conspired with government forces. Yeah, it sounds crazy but it would not be the first time a landlord engaged in murder and arson.

I do not know what happened to the people in the planes, but I would suggest that entities that would create a "New Pearl Harbor" that resulted in two wars, hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths, and 4.5 trillions in costs are not above anything.
Except you're basing your argument on opinions, beliefs, and falsehoods.

Quote:
I do not believe airplane with the amount of fuel they carry could destroy buildings in the manner we witnessed.
- False - unless you're you an aerospace engineer or something?

Quote:
The Twin Towers has a massive asbestos issue and the cost of abatement could have ruined the owner Larry Silverstein.
False - the asbestos was not a "massive issue" and the cost of abatement (if even necessary) was not substantial, especially when amortized over the years it would take to complete.

I don't think you realize gross revenues that were generated by the WTC which is what made them the target of the attack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by namahoo View Post
This is provably false.
You're gonna have to do better than that. Go ahead, prove it then.


That said, I believe this could be one of the cons against legalization.

Last edited by Sparky812; 09-13-2019 at 06:18 AM.
  #100  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:17 AM
namahoo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9
Quote:
Now we know where you actually stand on this matter.
This is not a fair statement, and it would not be useful at any rate. My beliefs are entirely irrelevant.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017