Do you think 9/11 was an inside job? A count

[No Limit]

Instead of getting your panties in a bunch why don't you address some of the real points made here as to why your conspiracy theory is retarded. Many people have done this in this thread, you have ignored every one of them while constantly making up new bullshit.

 

[lame-o]

You ****ing RETARD. I wasn't trying to argue that the conspiracy theory is right. The only time I've commented was when someone disagreed with the conspiracy then used a bullshit reason to do so. I have ignored the posts where people have expressed their opinions without bashing the other side using untrue claims because that is what this thread was supposed to be about. State your ****ing opinion then shut up. Am I, however, not allowed to try to keep people in check?

I don't really believe in the conspiracy theory, I just thought some people should be better ****ing informed of what it actually is.

You tard.

 

[CyberPitz]

Where is the "I don't care..." option? I just did "I don't know."

 

[Mr Stabby]

Just ask questions, like Glenn Beck.

 

[No Limit]

I see you went with the panties in a bunch option, figured.

And lame-o, I'm by no means saying that I believe that your mom is a dirty crack whore; I'm just asking questions and making sure everyone is better informed on the subject.

So come on guys, what do you think about lame-o's mom? I haven't found any evidance that says she isn't a herpes infested crack smoking whore.

 

[lame-o]

Where is the "I don't care..." option? I just did "I don't know."

If you don't care then don't take part, amirite?

I see you went with the panties in a bunch option, figured.

And lame-o, I'm by no means saying that I believe that your mom is a dirty crack whore; I'm just asking questions and making sure everyone is better informed on the subject.

So come on guys, what do you think about lame-o's mom? I haven't found any evidence that says she isn't a dirty crack whore.

I don't think you can quite grasp it, no. Doesn't work.

 

[No Limit]

See guys, I asked lame-o a direct question about his mom who might be a dirty crack whore. Why did he refuse to answer? Clearly he is hiding something.

 

[lame-o]

Yes, I'm hiding my mother's identity from the likes of you.

So, so, stupid.

 

[No Limit]

Ahh I see, you know she's a drity crack whore you just dont want us to know her identity. Gotchya. Again, I was just asking questions so we can all be better educated on this subject. And isn't it interesting that some people here actually believe your mom might be a dirty herpes infested crack whore? Who would have thought.

 

[Shyam]

in real life, complex conspiracies don't work well.

 

[Asknoone]

Samon, just because you're too immature to deal with grown up stuff doesn't mean you can spam how stupid you are to everyone and add your closest relatives as an option to this thread's poll.

So please get rid of it, thanks.

Woah there Chicken Little, I didn't edit your thread poll, and I do believe you are the one with a "Do you think 9/11 was an inside job? A count" thread. Please refer to the highlighted words in your quote.

 

[Ennui]

I edited the poll because dinosaurs did 9/11.

 

[No Limit]

Thats not fair though, I already voted "no" because I knew it wasnt a inside job because the dinosaurs actually did it.

 

[Ennui]

I'm sorry I couldn't get here with the truth sooner.

 

[Operational]

ITT: lame-o tries to convince everyone 9/11 was an inside job while saying he isn't trying to convince everyone that 9/11 was an inside job.

It seems like about a quarter of the people who visit the politics forum on halflife2.net are at least skeptical on the subject of 9/11.

You're seeing what you want to see. 25% of people don't fall into the "Yes, Definitely" category, with such black and white poll options that isn't the same thing as "25% of people are skeptical about 9/11".

 

[lame-o]

Did I say definitely? I said they're AT LEAST skeptical. As in not completely convinced.

 

[No Limit]

Did I say definitely? I said they're AT LEAST skeptical. As in not completely convinced.

So you now all of the sudden agree with the NIST that WTC collapsed because of a fire? Lost time I said this your words were "yeah, right, fire".

I'm still not fully convinced that your mom isn't a cracked out dirty whore; the fact you refuse to address this I think proves it.

 

[lame-o]

So you now all of the sudden agree with the NIST that WTC collapsed because of a fire? Lost time I said this your words were "yeah, right, fire".

I'm still not fully convinced that your mom isn't a cracked out dirty whore; the fact you refuse to address this I think proves it.

I don't know how you got that from THAT specific quote, but ok. Actually, that's probably the one thing that I do disagree with (and yeah I commented on it). There's no ****ing way WTC 7 collapsed because of a fire. The fires inside were so small that there wasn't even smoke escaping before the collapse. That would have to be one extremely centralized and effective fire to bring down a building like that.

They talked about demolishing the building before 9/11 anyway, maybe they decided that was the right time since there was a rather large fire inside? How many people were even inside WTC 7?

 

[VirusType2]

It seems like about a quarter of the people who visit the politics forum on halflife2.net are at least skeptical on the subject of 9/11. Which is pretty interesting. I wouldn't say it has as much to do with people's desire to denounce their own government as others would like to believe.

The problem is the way you worded the poll, "Yes, Definitely" or "No, Definitely".

How could any of us know with absolute certainty one way or the other? Every single vote should be, "I'm not sure", but that makes it sound like we are all conspiracy theorists.

 

[Sir Phoenixx]

It was The Patriots!

 

[15357]

You know, I think that a thread has outlived its effective life when,


a) People call each other's mothers dirty crack whores.

b) The thread becomes a Everyone VS OP melee madness.

 

[VirusType2]

Because sometimes, there is only one way to deal with conspiracy theorists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU

 

[No Limit]

I don't know how you got that from THAT specific quote, but ok. Actually, that's probably the one thing that I do disagree with (and yeah I commented on it). There's no ****ing way WTC 7 collapsed because of a fire. The fires inside were so small that there wasn't even smoke escaping before the collapse. That would have to be one extremely centralized and effective fire to bring down a building like that.

So if you disagree with what the NIST found you aren't on the sidelines. So stop ****ing pretending to be. You believe that this is a full blown conspiracy since you think there was a cover up when investigating wtc 7, simple as that.

Now let me show you how simple it is to disprove your bullshit, you could have done this yourself. As soon as you said there was not any smoke and that the fires were small I went to google and typed "wtc 7 smoke". This was one of the first results once you skipped past the crazy conspiracy sites:

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/wtc7-fires-close.jpg

That fire doesn't look small, in fact it looks pretty ****ing big since it is spread out across multiple floors. There is also plenty of smoke.

And if you actually bothered to do any research on the NIST report I pointed to you would see the evidance they have including pictures of cracking in the exterior of the building as well as a buldge that formed before the collapse (demolitions dont cause buldges in the building).

Edit: That image went down because of bandwidth, here is a different one showing even more smoke:

I put in way more effort in to this than I should have so if you ignore this post about how you are just making shit up I swear to god Im gonna make a new poll asking if your mom is a dirty herpes infested crack whore.

 

[No Limit]

You know, I think that a thread has outlived its effective life when,


a) People call each other's mothers dirty crack whores.

Who called anyone's mom a dirty crack whore? I was just asking questions, I never said such a thing.

 

[Escaep]

This thread has me :lol:

 

[Apocalypse89]

"I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but..." has become the new "I'm not racist, but..."

 

[15357]

Who called anyone's mom a dirty crack whore? I was just asking questions, I never said such a thing.

Yes.... But you....


Ah forget it. Stop ruining my aspirations for hegemonic world domination.

 

[lord_raken]

I don't know how you got that from THAT specific quote, but ok. Actually, that's probably the one thing that I do disagree with (and yeah I commented on it). There's no ****ing way WTC 7 collapsed because of a fire. The fires inside were so small that there wasn't even smoke escaping before the collapse. That would have to be one extremely centralized and effective fire to bring down a building like that.

They talked about demolishing the building before 9/11 anyway, maybe they decided that was the right time since there was a rather large fire inside? How many people were even inside WTC 7?

There were fires and a LOT of smoke... look at any picture of the towers after the attack. Also, the fires would have been hot enough to weaken the steel so that it would buckle and fail.

 

[kupocake]

This thread has me :lol:

I'm not sure I find it as amusing as it should be. Conspiracy theories are generally like Clearblue for stupid, but the 9/11 conspiracy is like the twenty-fourth week ultrasound that reveals kids nine through sixteen aren't coming separately this time.

 

[Escaep]

I'm not sure I find it as amusing as it should be. Conspiracy theories are generally like Clearblue for stupid, but the 9/11 conspiracy is like the twenty-fourth week ultrasound that reveals kids nine through sixteen aren't coming separately this time.

Its not that. Its the bickering that I find amusing.

 

[Tollbooth Willie]

JESUS CAUSED 9/11

 

[Acepilotf14]

I did it.

 

[Warped]

I did it.

We all did it, every time we bought some weed we contributed to TERRORISM!

 

[Dynasty]

Im not sure about the WTC hits.

But I am still absolutely, 100% convinced that it wasnt a plane that hit the Pentagon.

Theres too much coincidence around that crash site to suggest it wasnt a plane.

 

[VirusType2]

Im not sure about the WTC hits.

But I am still absolutely, 100% convinced that it wasnt a plane that hit the Pentagon.

Theres too much coincidence around that crash site to suggest it wasnt a plane.

like?

 

[lame-o]

There were fires and a LOT of smoke... look at any picture of the towers after the attack. Also, the fires would have been hot enough to weaken the steel so that it would buckle and fail.

From the footage we have of WTC 7 there were only a couple small fires around the middle of the building, and I don't think there was any smoke plume coming out of WTC 7, it looks like it's just the smoke shroud caused by the Twin Towers. Also, here's a historical fact: No fire has EVER caused any steel building to collapse, EVER. Except for WTC 7.

I think it's quite obvious that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition considering how it fell and the speed it fell at. There was absolutely no resistance. If a fire melted the steel structure on even 5 or 6 levels, there would still be resistance and chunks of the building breaking and falling off because of the weight and uneven resistance. Why did every single support give way at exactly the same time? The whole building buckled then fell as one.

Finally, would you agree that steel melts at 1510 °C (or 2750 °F)? Let's also agree that jet fuel (although I think wood burns slightly hotter) is the hottest substance that could possibly be burning inside any of the buildings. Jet fuel burns at 287.5 °C (549.5 °F) in an open air environment (meaning uncontrolled and not inside an engine), paper burns at 233 °C (451 °F), what else could be inside WTC 7? Wood? Plastic? Carpet? A fuel tank in the boiler room? But all that burns at a lower or equal to temperature as jet fuel. So, let's compare: STEEL(melting point: 1510 °C (or 2750 °F)) VS. JET FUEL(burning temp: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)). Will it melt?

Also take into consideration that the amount of a substance that is burning does not effect the temperature of the burn, at all. It's like throwing a log into a fireplace, the fire gets bigger but it's still the same temperature.

 

[Minister]

Finally, would you agree that steel melts at 1510 °C (or 2750 °F)? Let's also agree that jet fuel (although I think wood burns slightly hotter) is the hottest substance that could possibly be burning inside any of the buildings. Jet fuel burns at 287.5 °C (549.5 °F) in an open air environment (meaning uncontrolled and not inside an engine), paper burns at 233 °C (451 °F), what else could be inside WTC 7? Wood? Plastic? Carpet? A fuel tank in the boiler room? But all that burns at a lower or equal to temperature as jet fuel. So, let's compare: STEEL(melting point: 1510 °C (or 2750 °F)) VS. JET FUEL(burning temp: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)). Will it melt?

Steel does not have to melt for it to lose its structural integrity. In fact, the strength of steel begins to deteriorate at approximately 350 °C. You also state the burning temperatures of separate materials without taking into consideration that when different fuels are mixed, different and often greater burning temperatures are obtained.

Study done by University of Manchester highlighting how a normal fire can reach over 1000°C:

°http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...e/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/default.htm

 

[No Limit]

You post a ****ing picture of a bunch of smoke coming out of WTC7 and this asshole has the nerve to ignore that post then come back and post:

From the footage we have of WTC 7 there were only a couple small fires around the middle of the building, and I don't think there was any smoke plume coming out of WTC 7

I should have known better.

 

[Polaris]

Im not sure about the WTC hits.

But I am still absolutely, 100% convinced that it wasnt a plane that hit the Pentagon.

Theres too much coincidence around that crash site to suggest it wasnt a plane.

It was a missile surrounded by holograms made to look like plane. Really. :smoking:

 

[No Limit]

In its progress report, NIST released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 World Trade Center displays photographs of the southwest facade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south facade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.[4][40] A unique aspect of the design of 7 World Trade Center was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure's integrity.[41] Consistent with this theory, news footage shows cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[4] In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds.[4][42]

The working hypothesis, released in the June 2004 progress report and reiterated in a June 2007 status update, was that an initial failure in a critical column occurred below the 13th floor, caused by damage from fire and/or debris from the collapse of the two main towers. The collapse progressed vertically up to the east mechanical penthouse. The interior structure was unable to handle the redistributed load, resulting in horizontal progression of the failure across lower floors, particularly the 5th to 7th floors. This resulted in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure."[4][39][43]

....

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories say that the building collapses on September 11, including that of building seven, were the result of controlled demolition.[55][56][57][58] The draft NIST report rejected this hypothesis, as the window breakages and blast sound that would have occurred if explosives were used were not observed.[59] The use of thermate instead of explosives is discarded by NIST on the basis that it is unlikely the necessary 100 pounds of thermate for each steel column could have been planted without being discovered.

See what the NIST did there? They came up with a theory and then they showed evidance to prove that theory. That's what science does. What conspiracy nuts do is they throw out a bunch of theories that are not logically connected. For example, they say that it was a controlled demolition. But they have no evidance. If it was a controlled demolition there would be evidance, you would have demolition cord all over the place and windows would have exploded. You would also not have any of the bowing of the building. So then they say well thermite was used. This is what thermite does:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdCsbZf1_Ng

It would take 100 pounds of that stuff per steel column. So none of these crazy theories ever stand up to any kind of logical test. Why is this so difficult to understand?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#Collapse

Pictures showing lots of smoke and lots of damage on the south side of the building: