Don’t do that. No one is going to watch a video. We use the written word to communicate around here.
So, what about this person’s little film most impressed you?
[quote=“geological, post:100, topic:741016”]
[/QUOTE]“Ted Gunderson killed by The Iluminati”
[quote=“geological, post:100, topic:741016”]
[/QUOTE]Well, sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words… 
[quote=“geological, post:100, topic:741016”]
[/QUOTE]This is not appropriate behavior. You have been told to post actual, defensible comments of your own along with any link purporting to make a point. (This is true in mid thread as much as in the Original Post of a new thread.)
It is rude to make other posters do your work of deciphering what point you think you are making.
You will refrain from this behavior or you will lose your posting privileges.
[ /Moderating ]
It’s as if the Truthers never tried organizing anything. I learned the importance of dumping the logistics on someone else and not caring about the results because I’d rather sleep at night in the Boy Scouts, FFS.
It’s not just 9/11 nonsense; the CT’er handbook specifies that for any subject, inconvenient facts are most readily shunted aside by attacking the source, no matter how well-referenced it is.
“It’s just corporate media/government agency/a blog post/academic shill”.
Too bad other CIA guys say that the level of hoodwinking required for 9/11 was impossible.
In my experience, there is no point in debating conspiracy theorists of any kind. A conspiracy theory is like a virus that takes over the person’s mind and makes them incapable of seeing the topic in any other light.
Although as I mentioned I have seen some conversions over the years, I mostly argue not to convince the person promoting the 911 CT, but rather to make sure nobody is swayed by their ‘arguments’. Its easy to convince someone to a side when no opposing info shown, so something does need to be said against the CT nonsense.
Ideally I don’t just go for countering arguments, but to utterly destroy them and show them for how banal they really are. I’d like someone lurking in a 911 argument to realize that the truthers are not only not right, but horribly, horribly wrong.
Looks like “Truthering” may have started a long time ago…in a galaxy far, far away
I feel the same way about religion.
Look, if GOD can’t get away with that b.s., what makes you think CT’s can?
It’s pretty well documented that conspiracy theorists cling to ideology, much like politics or religion. It includes its own set of fundamental beliefs about the nature of the world and the search for meaning in it. Conspiracy theorists are naturally biased to seek out information that confirms their pre-existing ideology and ignore or dismiss contradictory evidence. Studies indicate that once a person is a CT they will be more prone to believing any CT, regardless of facts, even fictitious ones the researcher made up on the spot. So, yeah, arguing it is kind of futile because reason isn’t their strong suit.
I like to ask Truthers, if their ideas are true, what do they plan to do about it? It seems to me that if you believe the President of the United States and a large number of government operatives murdered thousands of Americans, then rebelling against that government and seeking justice would be a moral imperative. But I have yet to meet anyone who actually took concrete steps to overthrow the government, so I suppose that it must not be that big of a deal.
Stop talking about conspiracies and just make a physical or virtual model of the north tower that can completely collapse in less than 30 seconds.
In 1940 it only took 4 months to make a 1/200th scale model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge that duplicated the oscillations that caused the collapse of the real bridge. They didn’t have computers to confuse themselves with at the time.
So why can’t a twin tower model be made 46 years after the Moon landing?
The bridge model is shown 3 minutes into this video.
psikYou’ve had this explained to you by countless people in countless threads. The problem is and remains the scaling and the strength of the steel. The collapse of the towers is not comparable to the collapse of the bridge. You would have to make the model huge, and the costs are simply not worth it. And of course, people have gone over it with computer models at length. If that’s not good enough, I have no reason to believe that the physical model would convince you.
Bridges are not skyscrapers.
Furthermore, the model bridge only showed the oscillation effect. Did it show a collapse like you demand of Twin Tower models? No, it did not, merely the effect. Once again you fail to understand scaling and have had this explained to you countless times.
Why would I build a model when we have two perfectly good examples of it happening in real life?
tullsterx, I would like to introduce you to psikeyhackr. psikeyhackr, this is tullsterx. I think tullsterx has a few questions for you…
You do know why they built a model of the bridge in 1940, right?
It’s because they didn’t have computer modeling, which you hinted at in the above. Had they had the ability we have today, they wouldn’t have built the model in the first place. Physically modeling it was the best recourse they had at the time to understand what happened.
This is definitely Quote of the Week. Don’t get excited but you’re right up there for the monthly as well.