Author Topic: 9/11 [split topic]  (Read 7268 times)

Johnny Yesno

  • Perfume of a critic's burning flesh
    • Lines Horizontal
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2020, 05:33:11 PM »
I dunno.  Banging on about buildings which sploded almost 20 years ago is a pretty bad response to the coronavirus.

I missed a bit and actually thought that was the point.

Zetetic

  • Worrying the carcass of an old song.
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #31 on: May 15, 2020, 05:33:51 PM »
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Arthur Conan Doyle



Wonderful Butternut

  • Summer Night City!
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #32 on: May 15, 2020, 05:34:12 PM »
*Tells someone to look at Building 7's collapse*

*Posts 'evidence' from the collapse of one of the Twin Towers, a different building, after they do*

Try and make your goalpost moving a little bit subtle, Wolfie.

If you're interested (I'm sure you're not because it doesn't fit with your world view), I looked at the collapse of WTC 7 and a vid of controlled demolitions and the most remarkable aspect was the lack of really loud bangs just before and in the initial second or so of the WTC 7 collapse that you hear with controlled demolitions as the charges are set off(and no the audio from the vid was not muted). I'm sure the US government had some sort of special silent charges that no one else ever used ever though. Maybe they got them from space aliens or Icke's reptillians.

Johnny Yesno

  • Perfume of a critic's burning flesh
    • Lines Horizontal
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #33 on: May 15, 2020, 05:35:44 PM »

PlanktonSideburns

  • time takes its toll, but not on the eel dicks
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #34 on: May 15, 2020, 05:37:37 PM »
Now go now, and bask in your triumph!

There are no winners here

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #35 on: May 15, 2020, 05:47:18 PM »

PlanktonSideburns

  • time takes its toll, but not on the eel dicks
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #36 on: May 15, 2020, 05:49:15 PM »
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Arthur Conan Doyle



This quote assumes that you know everything about a situation, a completely impossible situation in every scenario, and that your eliminations are similarly impossibly informed

I think it was druids

Kryton

  • Disregard the Constabulary
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #37 on: May 15, 2020, 05:54:08 PM »
The Pentagon one is the most sus I reckon. To hit it SIDE on at near ground level, takes a LOT of piloting.

But whatever, I genuinely dunno and not getting into a debate, just raising something. I'm no pilot. 


Sin Agog

  • Dogs fucked the pope; no fault of mine
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #38 on: May 15, 2020, 05:59:46 PM »
The Pentagon one is the most sus I reckon. To hit it SIDE on at near ground level, takes a LOT of piloting.

But whatever, I genuinely dunno and not getting into a debate, just raising something. I'm no pilot.

You are a pilot.  People are so down on themselves on here, and I don't think it's just because of the corona.  You are a pilot, OK. You just are.

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #39 on: May 15, 2020, 06:00:14 PM »
*Tells someone to look at Building 7's collapse*

*Posts 'evidence' from the collapse of one of the Twin Towers, a different building, after they do*

Try and make your goalpost moving a little bit subtle, Wolfie.

If you're interested (I'm sure you're not because it doesn't fit with your world view), I looked at the collapse of WTC 7 and a vid of controlled demolitions and the most remarkable aspect was the lack of really loud bangs just before and in the initial second or so of the WTC 7 collapse that you hear with controlled demolitions as the charges are set off(and no the audio from the vid was not muted). I'm sure the US government had some sort of special silent charges that no one else ever used ever though. Maybe they got them from space aliens or Icke's reptillians.

Ah Ickes reptilians! Par for the course!

Actually nano thermite (or normal thermite) does indeed not explode in the manner of conventional explosives but whether you want to believe that or not, I guess is up to you.


Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #40 on: May 15, 2020, 06:06:56 PM »
they aren't squibs, that's air and debris being blown out of the building as the towers collapse you tiresome fool

okay now I'm done



So are these squibs?

If not, can you at least provide some pictures of what genuine squibs look like?

Endicott

  • I've done no research
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #41 on: May 15, 2020, 06:07:47 PM »
The evidence against the official 911 narrative is actually overwhelming. Most of this evidence (some presented below) is verifiable with an understanding of basic physics, and simply watching the collapse of the buildings themselves.

I've enboldened the part that made me laugh the most. I don't think you've got any understanding of physics, basic or otherwise.

Everything needed to rebut your claims is in these links. I presume you've already read them and concluded they are false, which is why I say you've no clue about physics. Please stop bringing physics into disrepute, thank you.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5654/debunking-911-myths-planes/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5688/debunking-911-myths-flight-93/

Jim Bob

  • (aka Right Said Brett)
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #42 on: May 15, 2020, 06:28:39 PM »
Calling something a 'conspiracy theory' is merely a very cunning way to ridicule, but more importantly discredit anyone who should dare to question officially sanctioned narratives.

There are such things as conspiracy theories which are true; theories rooted in science and objectivity, backed up by credible evidence, as agreed upon by experts within their field.  Then there are people like you, the basement dwelling conspiracy theorists; people who spout ill-informed nonsense because they think they have some kind of special insight and scientific knowledge because they once read a post on 4chan about how the Secret Service assassinated JFK and made Lee Harvey Oswald a patsy, when in actuality, such people don't know the first thing about anything.  People who act like an authoritative figure and spout the conspiracy theories of a lunatic deserve every last bit of ridicule for which they so very rightfully receive.

The only reason people like you invent these little conspiracy theories of yours, is because you're so incredibly fucking terrified that something like 9/11 could ever happen to not only a first world country but to the single most powerful country in the world.  "That could never happen, surely?  It had to be an inside job and calculated!  Phew, yes, that makes sense of everything.  I can sleep easy now."  The prospect that a devastating terrorist attack on that scale could possible ever happen without the Government preemptively putting a stop to it is the scariest thing in the world to you.  It's scary to a lot of people, but the sane and rational among us accept that no one man, nor government can control all.  We live in a chaotic universe.  To put it another way; shit happens.  Deal with it.

Every single little piece of nonsense "evidence" which you have put forth has been thoroughly discredited by scientific experts across the world (many of whom are entirely unbiased and would have no reason to lie), many times over.  Yet, you put more stock in the ramblings of Internet randos and accept their ignorant take as the objective truth.  Your mindset is one of a rancid kumquat.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2020, 06:39:18 PM by Jim Bob »

Endicott

  • I've done no research
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #43 on: May 15, 2020, 06:35:09 PM »
OP also appears to believe that it's possible to accurately analyse the minutia of an event based on looking at photos of it. The above squib argument being a case in point. This is so lacking in basic common sense as to be impossible to get past, I'm afraid.

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #44 on: May 15, 2020, 06:41:37 PM »
I've enboldened the part that made me laugh the most. I don't think you've got any understanding of physics, basic or otherwise.

Everything needed to rebut your claims is in these links. I presume you've already read them and concluded they are false, which is why I say you've no clue about physics. Please stop bringing physics into disrepute, thank you.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5654/debunking-911-myths-planes/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5688/debunking-911-myths-flight-93/

I've enboldened the part that made me laugh the most. I don't think you've got any understanding of physics, basic or otherwise.

Everything needed to rebut your claims is in these links. I presume you've already read them and concluded they are false, which is why I say you've no clue about physics. Please stop bringing physics into disrepute, thank you.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5654/debunking-911-myths-planes/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5688/debunking-911-myths-flight-93/

Ah popular mechanics! Yes I've certainly heard of them, and listened to their own explanations for the collapses.

Again, this is a fire induced collapse

    Slow onset with large visible deformations
    Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
    Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
    High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed


This is explosives

       Rapid onset of collapse
    Sounds of explosions
    Symmetrical structural failure
    Free-fall acceleration through the path of what was greatest resistance
    Imploded, collapsing completely, landing almost in its own footprint
    Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds


Do you disagree with the general outline of both catagories?

When you watch the buidlings come down-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiuFpuOsksc (and yes this is only an example of one building)

Which catagory do you think the 3 WTC buildings fall under? Do they seem to conform more to the fire induced collapse, or the 'explosives' induced collapse?
 
So...

Do you agree that the buildings came down at close to free fall speed, and that building seven attained free fall for a little more than 3 seconds?

Do you agree the buildings fell straight down into their own footprints, symmetrically?

Do you agree/disagree that the buildings were pulverized in mid air?

Do you agree or disagree that the twin towers were 'blown out' laterally or do you claim that the buildings simply fell straight down?

Do you disagree with the claim that molten iron burned under the towers for months?

I mean we could go on and on, with this....

This is obviously becoming increasingly hostile, and aggressive (ad hominem) but again that too, is sadly par for the course whenever anyone poses questions about 911 online and on public forums...



 

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #45 on: May 15, 2020, 06:43:54 PM »
There are such things as conspiracy theories which are true; theories rooted in science and objectivity, backed up by credible evidence, as agreed upon by experts within their field.  Then there are people like you, the basement dwelling conspiracy theorists; people who spout ill-informed nonsense because they think they have some kind of special insight and scientific knowledge because they once read a post on 4chan about how the Secret Service assassinated JFK and made Lee Harvey Oswald a patsy, when in actuality, such people don't know the first thing about anything.  People who act like an authoritative figure and spout the conspiracy theories of a lunatic deserve every last bit of ridicule for which they so very rightfully receive.

The only reason people like you invent these little conspiracy theories of yours, is because you're so incredibly fucking terrified that something like 9/11 could ever happen to not only a first world country but to the single most powerful country in the world.  "That could never happen, surely?  It had to be an inside job and calculated!  Phew, yes, that makes sense of everything.  I can sleep easy now."  The prospect that a devastating terrorist attack on that scale could possible ever happen without the Government preemptively putting a stop to it is the scariest thing in the world to you.  It's scary to a lot of people, but the sane and rational among us accept that no one man, nor government can control all.  We live in a chaotic universe.  To put it another way; shit happens.  Deal with it.

Every single little piece of nonsense "evidence" which you have put forth has been thoroughly discredited by scientific experts across the world (many of whom are entirely unbiased and would have no reason to lie), many times over.  Yet, you put more stock in the ramblings of Internet randos and accept their ignorant take as the objective truth.  Your mindset is one of a rancid kumquat.

Again try to adress the evidence yourself, rather than simply attacking/ridiculing the messenger and relying on the tried and tested 'appeal to expert' logical fallacy.

Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse

  • Le corpse garlique of Hercule Poirot
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #46 on: May 15, 2020, 06:45:22 PM »
I'm still not seeing any explanation as to how the US government managed to silence all the people involved in order to maintain this coverup. Just "well special, magical explosives that didn't bang were used" and "OH WELL WHAT DO SQUIBS LOOK LIKE THEN M. POIROT"

Come on Wolf8312, explain how the government managed to silence all the people I mentioned here

btw the evidence has been addressed, you just insist on handwaving any that doesn't line up with your worldview

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #47 on: May 15, 2020, 06:46:18 PM »
I'm still not seeing any explanation as to how the US government managed to silence all the people involved in order to maintain this coverup. Just "well special, magical explosives that didn't bang were used" and "OH WELL WHAT DO SQUIBS LOOK LIKE THEN M. POIROT"

Come on Wolf8312, explain how the government managed to silence all the people I mentioned here

btw the evidence has been addressed, you just insist on handwaving any that doesn't line up with your worldview

I thought you were done?

You told me that the photos I provided were not of genuine squibs. Therefore is it not reasonable that you provide me with a picture of what a genuine squib looks like?

Jim Bob

  • (aka Right Said Brett)
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #48 on: May 15, 2020, 06:52:05 PM »
Again try to adress the evidence yourself, rather than simply attacking/ridiculing the messenger and relying on the tried and tested 'appeal to expert' logical fallacy.

Yeah, what do those so-called "experts" know?!  Clearly the guy who goes by the handle of "Wolf8312" online is the the real expert.

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #49 on: May 15, 2020, 06:53:17 PM »
Tower 7 falls down as if Fred Dibnah had set it up.

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #50 on: May 15, 2020, 06:53:49 PM »
Yeah, what do those so-called "experts" know?!  Clearly the guy who goes by the handle of "Wolf8312" online is the the real expert.

Again more ridicule steadfastly ignoring the actual points raised.

Jim Bob

  • (aka Right Said Brett)
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #51 on: May 15, 2020, 06:54:50 PM »
I'm still not seeing any explanation as to how the US government managed to silence all the people involved in order to maintain this coverup. Just "well special, magical explosives that didn't bang were used" and "OH WELL WHAT DO SQUIBS LOOK LIKE THEN M. POIROT"

Come on Wolf8312, explain how the government managed to silence all the people I mentioned here

This is often the main thing that any wack-job like Wolfy is unable to counter.  They'll just ignore it and never address it, because it cannot logically be explained.  See here...

I thought you were done?

Endicott

  • I've done no research
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #52 on: May 15, 2020, 06:55:13 PM »
Do you disagree with the general outline of both catagories?

Yes. You think you can reduce real events to a list of criteria. I'm afraid real life is more complicated than that.

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #53 on: May 15, 2020, 06:56:26 PM »
Yes. You think you can reduce real events to a list of criteria. I'm afraid real life is more complicated than that.

Yeah just ignore all the questions!

Cuellar

  • Taxes, they'll be lower...son
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #54 on: May 15, 2020, 06:57:44 PM »
Tower 7 falls down as if Fred Dibnah had set it up.

Racistly?

(was he a racist? I don't know, probably not sorry Fred!)

Operty1

  • Frankie says you're 83% a real person
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #55 on: May 15, 2020, 06:57:48 PM »
So if the twin towers were rigged with explosives for a controlled demolition, what stopped them instantly exploding when the planes hit? Did the planes manage to hit the floors not rigged with explosives?


Jim Bob

  • (aka Right Said Brett)
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #56 on: May 15, 2020, 06:58:17 PM »
Again more ridicule steadfastly ignoring the actual points raised.

Why would I take the time to refute your ramblings point by point?  It's been done by people smarter than I, with actual credentials, time and time again.  You don't care to take note of those rebuttals though.  You've made up your mind and that is that.  Just like all the other conspiracy lunatics.

I'm not here to refute your nonsense.  I'm here to enjoy the freak show.

"Roll up, roll up. Come one, come all, see the boy with half a brain"

*grabs popcorn*

Sin Agog

  • Dogs fucked the pope; no fault of mine
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #57 on: May 15, 2020, 06:58:47 PM »
I thought you were done?

You told me that the photos I provided were not of genuine squibs. Therefore is it not reasonable that you provide me with a picture of what a genuine squib looks like?


batwings

  • Timewaster seeks same. No timewasters please.
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #58 on: May 15, 2020, 07:01:54 PM »
All this talk about towers 1,2 and 7 makes me think that the real conspiracy involves 3,4,5 or 6. Classic misdirection. Bet they never even thought to check those.

Endicott

  • I've done no research
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #59 on: May 15, 2020, 07:04:29 PM »
Yeah just ignore all the questions!

Your initial assumptions are all wrong and they render all your questions meaningless. And anyway I've already posted 4 links containing all the rebuttals I would use, if there was any point. I'm afraid that you have some fundamental flaws in how you view the world and I can't help you with that, you can only help yourself. Good luck.

Tags: