So you’re not actually interested in learning unless it’s spoonfed to you.
Got it.
Because it has nothing to do with the OP. And yes, I have to say also that the movie is wrong because it is trying to use that as evidence of the big conspiracy and that 9/11 was an inside job. Not a healty thing to do as you are using baseless conclusions and attempting to make them fit with the facts.
I didn’t claim that those things are good evidence that there was a controlled demolition. I said those Bush/Cheney conditions “were a major reason I became skeptical about the official 9/11 story”. I mean it caused me to look into the conspiracy theories, not necessarily believe them.
Well some people in this thread are helpful in that they give answers rather than just keep telling me to look in the other threads.
Are you confusing the events of that day with the administration sheltering Saudi Arabia from any blame? Those are two separate issues.
I have looked at many skeptics before and participated in many of those threads; believe me, there is nothing new that you have brought here in this thread so far. Even the usual of not stopping for a moment to accept what was explained before and continue to post as if nothing was cited before is showing a lot in your posts so far.
I’m saying that some people’s posts are more useful to me than others. And yes I prefer a good link to a website specifically covering my concerns point by point.
I wouldn’t even object to the spoonfeeding…if it weren’t for the somewhat predictable response, which we have seen a dozen times in the past.
1: Easy question.
2: Simple answer.
3: “But that doesn’t explain…”
(And the Great Pyramid was built by water-geysers…)
So some people are saying I should just read heaps of those threads while others are giving me answers. Because some me are providing me the answers I’m looking for I don’t need to read through all of those threads. Also if I had a question to one of those old threads people might not like me reopening a long dead thread.
I think the biggest problem is that you are imagining buildings “tipping over”, not “collapsing”. Because you suspect that a building would fall sideways instead of straight down, it seems too tidy for it to just crumble the way they did.
But first, you should note that the buildings did not collapse into a tidy space not much bigger than their own footprint. The further away you are, the more tidy and controlled the collapses appeared to be. One of the first hits I found to touch on this phenomenon is here.
This actually makes sense if you think about it. If any part of the building started to “lean” due to part of the support structure failing, your knee-jerk assumption is that it would continue to lean further and further in that direction, until the whole building is laid out sideways. However, the reality is that all the supporting structure is meant to resist force from directly above it, not at an angle. The more steep the “lean” is, the less effective the support is. As soon as the support fails, the only remaining force is a tremendous gravity pulling it straight down. The taller and heavier a building is, the more “straight down” pressure is applied to it, easily overwhelming any resistance once it starts collapsing. There would be plenty of debris flung about smashing up things far away from the main pile of rubble, but by and large, that pile of rubble would indeed be pretty much where the original footprint of the building stood.
Bruce Willis was busy that day, or he would have walked away from the burning WTC in slow motion.
Well the OP site has 10 items of “key evidence”
so that’s quite a lot to refute though eventually I was given links to websites that address it…
Exactly.
If I still thought that explosives were involved I’d mention posts 48 and 49 and say that’s why it wasn’t completely tidy.
Yes that was my opinion.
Sorry, but using the Zeitgeist movie as a point does not lead to take your concern very seriously.
You do need to realize that it is just your opinion that the concerns you are bringing were not dealt before with. That most experts and engineers agree that it was not a controlled demolition and the planes and the fires they caused were the reason of the collapses is just about the first item that you should accept so as to not sound insulting to the ones you are claiming to ask for help in this issue.
Just a thought.
The first, rapid destruction … is patently false … plane hits, over an hour to bring the building down … how is this “rapid”?
Well, yes, they hope if they toss enough shit at the wall, some of it will stick.
In this case, none of it does, and the sheer quantity of bullshit involved should not be taken as a proxy for quality, nor does it make that bullshit smell any sweeter.
There are tons of 9/11 threads that can be found by simple searches (for example, using “world trade center” brings up several). It is absolutely NOT asking too much that you put in the minimal work of doing so, rather than asking other posters do this work for you. You’ve been on the board long enough to know how things work around here.
Well I thought they said it was nano-thermite explosives that caused them to fall in a way that appears to the layman to be like a controlled demolition.
By your own words…
You already told me that you found what I linked to to be useful, in this very same thread. The real question is, useful for what? So stop being insulting, I will only then realize that others are correct and you are only wasting my time and the time of others.
The take home lesson is that indeed, you should read those heaps and accept the answers of others. I have found that there are no shortcuts to learning, unless you do not want to.
What’s your opinion now? Do you think terrorists flying airplanes into the WTC buildings is what caused them to fall? If not, then what? Try to be succinct, and avoid saying what you think *didn’t *happen.
Please define “nano-thermite explosive” … the key feature to thermite is that it is non-explosive … you have a made-up word here so I’m appreciate a definition.
Well I was only interesting in Building 7 and I found that thread myself. Also it seems some people are happy to give me answers or provide links to good sites. If you don’t want to do that why not just not say anything and let the others do it?