No in the same way that I haven’t seen a moon landing in person.
They left because they weren’t interested in ‘facts’. Consensus had nothing to do with it.
Why should anyone engage with you, when you can’t be arsed to read the previous threads?
If you want to know our beliefs, read the threads!
Ok so you “know” what the “facts” are…
Well I wasn’t provided with ANY specific links. I guess because there are just so many threads about an argument that the “overwhelming consensus” “know” is just “conspiracy theory nonsense on par with the Illuminati”
Ok I found this from 6 years ago:
“Facebook-postable explanation of Building 7 on 9/11 please”
BTW this is a “Great Debates” forum… I thought it would be where people could debate arguments not just keep on saying things like look up the threads yourself.
Anyway I thought reopening a thread from 6 years ago would be discouraged.
tomndebb wrote:
“The issues surrounding WTC 7 have been argued lots of times on the SDMB.”
Surely someone could sum up the main arguments?
BTW he also said “Also, recall that THIS thread is in General Questions, so please refrain from attempting to debate any issues in this thread: open a new thread in Great Debates for that purpose.”
That implies that it isn’t a “factual” question.
gonzomax and perhaps others were disagreeing with the “overwhelming consensus” and at that time he had been a member for over 4 years.
Someone in the thread gave this link about Building 7 which I’ll check out:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
“9/11 Rumors and Conspiracy Theories - The ten most widely circulated rumors and conspiracy theories associated with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.”
Doesn’t seem to have ANY mention of a controlled demolition or related issues.
The Straight Dope column doesn’t seem to talk about WTC conspiracy theories though it does assert “Yes, they walked on the moon”
and it talks about secret societies
It seems odd that it seems to not mention an issue that has been debated so much on these forums.
OP: How is this not “JAQ”?
I’m also debating people who immediately dismiss my concerns.
I’ve been looking at the link to a “Debunking 911” page:
It isn’t very professional - the site in the OP is far more professional and has a lot more people involved.
So there’s that link and the Popular Mechanics book for a start…
bolding mine.
Of course they don’t. You can tell movies from reality, can’t you?
I recall seeing a presentation by an LHC scientist that used comic sans and shitty clipart.
It looked like a 12 year-old had thrown it together and yet it contained flights of genius that the 9-11 conspiracy theorists can barely comprehend.
“slick” does not equal “worthy” otherwise we’d all be lauding timeshare con-artists to the high heavens.
Well I don’t think debunking911.com is mentioned on Wikipedia while the organisation in the OP has quite a large Wikipedia article:
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth - Wikipedia
I’m going to check out s3e3 of Penn and Teller’s “Bullshit” which mentions 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Well the CGI of collapsing buildings is getting pretty realistic…
I was wondering, do controlled demolitions have explosives anywhere else besides the base of the building because it looks like the first WTC tower had the “explosions” happening in the middle of the building.
I haven’t seen all of the “Penn and Teller’s Bullshit” Conspiracy episode but an interesting part was when they said that according to a poll 49.3% of New Yorkers believe that our leaders knew that the 9/11 attacks were planned and they intentionally failed to act.
Thanks! This part is relevant:
That was a major issue I had…
At this point, there is no debate; there is no concern. There is no mystery as to what happened with the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. There is also no mystery as to who perpetrated the assassination of Kennedy, nor is there any mystery about the Moon landing.
The Bush administration had a counter-terrorism advisor (Richard A. Clarke) who was adamant in early 2001 about a pending attack. He spent a lot of time trying to bring it to cabinet-level attention and was basically told to shut up about it. A month later, 9/11. There’s nothing secret about this and nothing conspiratory - the Bush administration just assumed it couldn’t happen to them.
Also, the OP should be figuring out by now that yes there was a conspiracy and we are all in on it.
That information was readily available to you. All you had to do was look for it. I don’t understand why you feel that it is impossible for you to spend as much time looking for and studying the case against “9/11 Truth” as you did in swallowing hook, line, and sinker the crackpot theory.
Yes, the destruction of the three buildings looked a lot like controlled demolitions. This doesn’t mean anything, though, unless you first establish that failures due to heavy impacts and jet-fuel fires do not look like controlled demolitions. In reality, failures due to heavy impacts and jet-fuel fires look a great deal like controlled demolitions, because the constraints imposed by the laws of physics pretty much only allow for one possible way for large buildings to fall. Computer graphics, meanwhile, can be created in a way that’s consistent with the laws of physics, but quite often aren’t, because filmmakers care only about what looks cool on screen, and not one whit about what’s actually realistic.
Pressure on the brain.
Either that, or they were hired by Bin Laden to destabilize the USA through conspiracy nuttery.