It's not a conspiracy

[Joe User]

BTW, a really great source of information on 9/11 is right here. It's peer reviewed scientific evidence that proves the official conspiracy theory is bull****.

Considering these were several huge structures, including one that contained large quantities of fuel, several running train stations, restaurants, a hotel, a mall filled with shops, medical centers, a parking garage with cars & trucks, computer server farms, safes with who knows what, hundreds of business offices with all sorts of items in them, not to mention 2000+ people and they think that something doesn't belong? It's the size of a small city with as much diversity and nothing to compare it to.

[mudslag]

I got a solution, it may seem simple or stupid but it works: be proud of being a truther! What's the opposite? A liar?

Grow the **** up, someone who believes the official story IS NOT A LIAR. A liar is someone who does not tell the truth. If you believe something, even if its not the truth, that doesnt make YOU the liar. grow up

[PreKe]

I got a solution, it may seem simple or stupid but it works: be proud of being a truther! What's the opposite? A liar?

"Truther" is a term used by people who mindlessly accepts any wild claim about 9/11 as long as it opposes the "official position". In other words, it is not a search for truth. It's more that truthers claim to search for truth, so the term was originaly used to make fun of them.

BTW, a really great source of information on 9/11 is right here. It's peer reviewed scientific evidence that proves the official conspiracy theory is bull****.

That is not peer reviewed research. It's a well known piece of garbage written by that liar, Jones.

[Joe User]

I got a solution, it may seem simple or stupid but it works: be proud of being a truther! What's the opposite?

A realist.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

I got a solution, it may seem simple or stupid but it works: be proud of being a truther! What's the opposite? A liar?

Grow up.

Being proud to be a "truther"...how about allowing Howling Wind to make up her own mind. There is no "fitting in" in regards to this event. No reason to be "proud" of which side you are on. She is at the perfect age to read into the facts and theories and come up with her own conclusion. I hope she does revisit readings/videos of 9/11.

If you are about the same age as her...revisit the facts/theories. If you are older...I feel sorry for you.

[SyntaxError]

There's only one real conspiracy.

It's all a plot by the Man to keep us down. :shiftyninja:

On a serious note, I don't believe planes brought down the WTC towers or that a plane hit the Pentagon.

Several buildings around the world, each built in a similar fashion as the twin towers, before and after 9/11, have been hit with various planes. And not one of them has fallen.

The Empire State building was hit by a freakin' B25 bomber back in WW2 and it's still standing today.

As for the Pentagon, we've all seen the few frames they released from the checkpoint security camera. Unlike most of you, I've actually been to the Pentagon once. I used to live 10 minutes outside Washington DC and my dad was stationed at Andrews AFB, while mom was stationed at Bolling AFB. I was raised around planes, civilian and military.

While I'm not claiming to be an expert, I do know a thing or 3. I know that the area surrounding the Pentagon where the "plane" came in from, is a residential area and there's no way in hell a 757 could have been brought down from altitude, and leveled off just a few feet above ground without taking out several houses in the process. There's just not enough open space, nor is it flat.

There's simply no way in hell that thin white streak in the video, flying perfectly level, can possibly be a Boeing 757. It's simply way too small. And I believe way too fast, but that's my own personal judgment. There's no measurements of the cameras FOV, or the lawn, or even frame speed to determine the speed of the object.

Also, are we really supposed to believe some wackos who may have taken flying lessons in a Cesna suddenly had the skill to pilot a 757 like that? Yeah right.

Edited April 23, 2010 by SyntaxError

[COKid]

Hmm...guess I stumbled into the Jokes & Funny Stuff section :woot:

[hdood]

Several buildings around the world, each built in a similar fashion as the twin towers, before and after 9/11, have been hit with various planes. And not one of them has fallen.

Like? Name three.

[s1k3sT]

Grow the **** up, someone who believes the official story IS NOT A LIAR. A liar is someone who does not tell the truth. If you believe something, even if its not the truth, that doesnt make YOU the liar. grow up

lolumad?

I was just saying that the popular "insult" to us is calling us "truthers" like that's something bad, I just made the comment that if we are truther than what is the opposite? You said it yourself, "A liar is someone who does not tell the truth", I just wanted to point out that that same thing; if you aren't telling the truth you are telling a lie. I didn't mean to offend anyone personally, you are the one that needs to grow up.

Grow up.

Being proud to be a "truther"...how about allowing Howling Wind to make up her own mind. There is no "fitting in" in regards to this event. No reason to be "proud" of which side you are on. She is at the perfect age to read into the facts and theories and come up with her own conclusion. I hope she does revisit readings/videos of 9/11.

If you are about the same age as her...revisit the facts/theories. If you are older...I feel sorry for you.

No fitting in?! You are pretty much saying she has to "fit in" to the official story of the event. You are pretty much saying don't look into anything, just believe the government officials, they would never lie. I would caution her to think for herself, to do the research.

What's funny about this whole 9/11 thing is that the "truthers" provide evidence to back up our claims, while the only thing we get in return is personal attacks. Why doesn't anyone want to debate the facts?

[SyntaxError]

Like? Name three.

http://www.google.com/search?q=history+of+airplanes+crashing+into+buildings&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=AQo&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=ngPRS9-DKIG49QSs9KC5Dw&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CCUQ5wIwCg

Do your own research. The above link is just American crashes I believe.

Addendum to my previous post: According to this page http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0901/091101k1.htm the "plane" that hit the Pentagon, first hit a helicopter landing pad then skidded into the building. Yet what the camera footage I mentioned shows something completely different. What it shows is clearly flying, not skidding on the ground. Also, there was no helicopter pad in the path of the "plane".

[iamawesomewicked]

The two separate words conspiracy and theory have a totally different meaning than the term conspiracy theory, so you example of coke and pepsi isn't valid. It's like comparing pepsi to motor oil, although some would agree :laugh: , we all know they aren't even close to the same. The two words separately define an average person, and pretty much the whole population, whereas the new 1984 meaning is almost the exact opposite, it only encompasses a very small segment of the population.

BTW, a really great source of information on 9/11 is right here. It's peer reviewed scientific evidence that proves the official conspiracy theory is bull****.

I'll just leave these here for everyone who doesn't know who the "peers" in the so called "peer reviewed" "scientific evidence" you claim, are.

Steven E. Jones

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones#WTC_destruction_controversy

James R. Gourley seems to be non-existent

and

Kevin R Ryan

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm

And I leave you with a video Debunking all at least 2 of those aforementioned jackasses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW0IFgCE1YA

[Kreuger]

They do collapse. We saw it on 9/11.

As I recall, the towers were attacked in the early '90s too but I wasnt old enough to know. What happened then?

[s1k3sT]

And I leave you with a video Debunking all at least 2 of those aforementioned jackasses.

Are you serious?! I hope you are joking...

A youtube video does NOT trump peer reviewed scientific evidence. Besides, the video you posted doesn't even mention the paper I linked to, it's a completely different paper... LOL

As for the beginning of your post, that is what's called an ad hominem attack, or an attack on the messenger/person. If the evidence is so much in your favor all you have to do is provide it, I'm waiting. A youtube video will not work to trump a peer reviewed scientific paper.

[Billus]

Wow, the amount of stupid people in this thread, get a dose of some reality. Oh noes, a plane can't destroy a building...wtf? Have you played that game where you pile up sticks to make a tower and have to take a few out one at a time? The building obviously collapses because there is lack of balance and too much weight/pressure is on one side. Obviously, the plane didn't land itself in the building, it went head on with tremendous force and speed. You can think it like the ball that is used for demolitions, it knocks the building over.

Edit: Those are practical examples. I cbf to go into the theory.

And no, I don't think the US Government made up 9/11 or planned it.

[hdood]

Do your own research.

So what you're saying is that you can't find three examples of buildings "built in a similar fashion as the twin towers" that have been hit by airliners? My apologies for thinking you could actually document your claims.

[Howling Wind]

"Have you played that game?" wtf? GAME?!

I'm not even sure why I am answering that question.

Okay, so the metal gets hot and it sags. Clearly you can see that by how the top of the tower is silting. Nobody is denying that. It just the first time in history that a plane managed to collapse a sky scrapper in a matter of short time and straight down. I mean, you'd think it would kind of fall sideways. Not collapse under itself.

But yes please don't use games as an example. That's just...

I lol'd

[s1k3sT]

So what you're saying is that you can't find three examples of buildings "built in a similar fashion as the twin towers" that have been hit by airliners? My apologies for thinking you could actually document your claims.

Actually it is you that is making the claim. You are claiming that Muslims conspired to hijack planes and crash them into wtc and the pentagon and that those planes brought down the towers, did you forget? Please document these claims...

All we are saying is that we don't think it happened how we are being told it happened.

And yeah, I LOLed at the jenja reference, that's exactly like a real building and plane...

[Solid Knight]

Because a B25 is just as fast and structurally sound as a 757.

[SyntaxError]

So what you're saying is that you can't find three examples of buildings "built in a similar fashion as the twin towers" that have been hit by airliners? My apologies for thinking you could actually document your claims.

If you had actually bothered to look for yourself, you would see that most search results regarding the subject show 2 things: 9/11 and the most recent IRS building in Austin Texas.

Kind of hard to research something else when that's all that comes up. The timeline link I provided, which you obviously didn't bother looking at, shows more than enough to back me up anyway.

Also, I don't feel I need to justify myself to the likes of you, who won't even bother looking for himself.

Just to get you started, there was one in China in 2008 I think.

[Solid Knight]

I'll entertain this idea. The government blew up those buildings on purpose so they could... spend billions of dollars on an unpopular war and get nothing in return?

[SyntaxError]

I'll entertain this idea. The government blew up those buildings on purpose so they could... spend billions of dollars on an unpopular war and get nothing in return?

Ever heard of the Reichstag?

9/11 was a false flag attack, just like the Reichstag.

[Billus]

"Have you played that game?" wtf? GAME?!

I'm not even sure why I am answering that question.

Okay, so the metal gets hot and it sags. Clearly you can see that by how the top of the tower is silting. Nobody is denying that. It just the first time in history that a plane managed to collapse a sky scrapper in a matter of short time and straight down. I mean, you'd think it would kind of fall sideways. Not collapse under itself.

But yes please don't use games as an example. That's just...

I lol'd

The game is called "Jenga", look it up. Small kids have a better grasp of physics than you do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vmIGGKvIms&feature=related

[s1k3sT]

I'll entertain this idea. The government blew up those buildings on purpose so they could... spend billions of dollars on an unpopular war and get nothing in return?

First of all, the term "the government" is wrong, the claim is that certain people in high positions did it. The ides isn't that it's the whole government, just key people high up in the ranks. As for motive, false flags always have the same motive, plus have you ever heard of Haliburton?

[Solid Knight]

Ever heard of the Reichstag?

9/11 was a false flag attack, just like the Reichstag.

Awesome. Except this isn't Nazi Germany. What did the US government get besides a massive pile of debut they're now panicking about?

[Jim K Global Moderator]

No fitting in?! You are pretty much saying she has to fit into the official story of the event if you don't think she should look into the truth. You are pretty much saying don't look into anything, just believe the government officials, they would never lie...

What's funny about this whole 9/11 thing is that the "truthers" provide evidence to back up our claims, while the only thing we get in return is personal attacks. Why doesn't anyone want to debate the facts?

Where in my post did I say "she has to fit into the official story"?

Did I not say for her to look into the facts/theories...and to revisit the events of 9/11?

Where did I mention for her to just believe the government officials?

:rolleyes:

What evidence do you have? What evidence do you have that has not be DEBUNKED by people with higher intelligence in physics and structural engineering than both you and I combined. Reason why I wouldn't want to debate with you...it is practically impossible to debate with people like you. I could link you to every article on the reasons why 9/11 happened...but you wouldn't believe a one of them. They have been out there for years for everyone to see...so obviously you either a) read...but dismissed them or b) didn't care to read them.

"You can't fix stupid"

:pinch: