Answers About 9/11 That Conspiracy Theorists Don't Want to Hear

If an arachnologist told me a brown recluse bite would rot my thumb if left untreated, and my thumb was bitten by what I was thought to have been a brown recluse, I'd listen. The point being, that he had prior knowledge of fuel oil tanks, and knowing of what it would do if one exploded. How is that an opinion? If I take apart an xbox 360 controller (which I have) and tell someone that when you take the trigger button out of the frame, that the spring will pop up at you, is it an opinion? Invisible_Kid2

Yes.:| Ever hear of getting a second opinion for a diagnosis? An opinion based on knowledge and experience is still an opinion until evidence for that opinion is discovered, and guess what? There is no evidence that anything other than fuel tanks exploded. This man heard wrong. It's that simple. There were no bombs found, there were no traces of bombs found, there was nothing but fuel tanks. He diagnosed hemorrhoids when it was pink eye and he said it was a black widow when it was a mosquito and he said there would be springs in the controller when there wasn't.

[QUOTE="Invisible_Kid2"] If an arachnologist told me a brown recluse bite would rot my thumb if left untreated, and my thumb was bitten by what I was thought to have been a brown recluse, I'd listen. The point being, that he had prior knowledge of fuel oil tanks, and knowing of what it would do if one exploded. How is that an opinion? If I take apart an xbox 360 controller (which I have) and tell someone that when you take the trigger button out of the frame, that the spring will pop up at you, is it an opinion? Theokhoth

Yes.:| Ever hear of getting a second opinion for a diagnosis? An opinion based on knowledge and experience is still an opinion until evidence for that opinion is discovered, and guess what? There is no evidence that anything other than fuel tanks exploded. This man heard wrong. It's that simple. There were no bombs found, there were no traces of bombs found, there was nothing but fuel tanks. He diagnosed hemorrhoids when it was pink eye and he said it was a black widow when it was a mosquito and he said there would be springs in the controller when there wasn't.

Why conspiracy theorists continue to argue this, I have no idea. You guys have been destroyed many times. Give up already.rockon1215

As I suggested, it's cult mentality.

[QUOTE="rockon1215"]Why conspiracy theorists continue to argue this, I have no idea. You guys have been destroyed many times. Give up already.ThePlothole

As I suggested, it's cult mentality.

Do you work around fuel tanks, bombs, or someone covering information about 9/11? Then really, everything you say is opinion without anything to back them up. I provide a link to further information in my claims.Invisible_Kid2

Get this through your head: I don't need evidence of a bomb because I'm the one saying there was no bomb. The guy saying there was a bomb was wrong, becauseno bomb was found even though he says there was a bomb. I provided over 15 links for my position, most of them addressing the crap you're bringing up right now.

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"][QUOTE="rockon1215"]Why conspiracy theorists continue to argue this, I have no idea. You guys have been destroyed many times. Give up already.Invisible_Kid2

As I suggested, it's cult mentality.

It is cult mentality. Look up the signs of a cult and then look up the behavior patterns of conspiracy theorists and their theories.Why do you think Holocaust denial is so rampant?

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"][QUOTE="rockon1215"]Why conspiracy theorists continue to argue this, I have no idea. You guys have been destroyed many times. Give up already.Invisible_Kid2

As I suggested, it's cult mentality.

How about you look back a few pages?

[QUOTE="Invisible_Kid2"][QUOTE="ThePlothole"]

As I suggested, it's cult mentality.

Theokhoth

It is cult mentality. Look up the signs of a cult and then look up the behavior patterns of conspiracy theorists and their theories.Why do you think Holocaust denial is so rampant?

All I have to say is, Holocaust deniers are *******.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Invisible_Kid2"] Great response. Make fun of someone instead of adding something to the discussion. You're post was a great contribution. chessmaster1989

It is cult mentality. Look up the signs of a cult and then look up the behavior patterns of conspiracy theorists and their theories.Why do you think Holocaust denial is so rampant?

All I have to say is, Holocaust deniers are *******.

Yes.

And 9/11 conspiracies are the same exact thing. The same mentality, the same roots, the same lack of any justification, the same followers, the same paranoia.

[QUOTE="Invisible_Kid2"][QUOTE="ThePlothole"]

As I suggested, it's cult mentality.

Theokhoth

It is cult mentality. Look up the signs of a cult and then look up the behavior patterns of conspiracy theorists and their theories.Why do you think Holocaust denial is so rampant?

Honestly, that's just plain stupid. How can someone deny history of the Holocaust when there is tons of information about it, which can be proven so easily. 9/11 still has important unanswered questions.Invisible_Kid2

No it ****ing doesn't. This "unanswered questions" crap is a myth spun by paranoid lunatics who want to look smart by calling out the government on every significant event that happens. What do you think the point of this topic is? There's not a thing--not a single damn thing--you or anyone else has said in here or out in society that has not been answered repeatedly, again and again and again and again in the eight years we've had to deal with this bullcrap.

The questions have been answered--you simply don't want to hear them, because they are not the answers you want to hear. 9/11 conspiracies are on the exact same plane as Holocaust denial, and it's about time they flew into their own tower of ignorance and vaporized.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Invisible_Kid2"] Great response. Make fun of someone instead of adding something to the discussion. You're post was a great contribution. Invisible_Kid2

It is cult mentality. Look up the signs of a cult and then look up the behavior patterns of conspiracy theorists and their theories.Why do you think Holocaust denial is so rampant?

No, they are similar. Holocaust deniers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists both twist, distort, and ignore evidence to fit some ******** idea.

[QUOTE="Invisible_Kid2"]Honestly, that's just plain stupid. How can someone deny history of the Holocaust when there is tons of information about it, which can be proven so easily. 9/11 still has important unanswered questions.Theokhoth

No it ****ing doesn't. This "unanswered questions" crap is a myth spun by paranoid lunatics who want to look smart by calling out the government on every significant event that happens. What do you think the point of this topic is? There's not a thing--not a single damn thing--you or anyone else has said in here or out in society that has not been answered repeatedly, again and again and again and again in the eight years we've had to deal with this bullcrap.

The questions have been answered--you simply don't want to hear them, because they are not the answers you want to hear. 9/11 conspiracies are on the exact same plane as Holocaust denial, and it's about time they flew into their own tower of ignorance and vaporized.

I have not heard an answer on tower 7 that fits. Invisible_Kid2

You have heard no answer that fits the answers you want to hear. Nor will you. The real world works like that.

The answers I've heard are still questionable. Invisible_Kid2

See, here's the thing: you pick on the smallest "questionable" bit and then act like it discredits the entire explanation, when whatever explanations you or any conspiracy nut comes up with are far more ridiculous.

[QUOTE="Invisible_Kid2"]The answers I've heard are still questionable. Theokhoth

See, here's the thing: you pick on the smallest "questionable" bit and then act like it discredits the entire explanation, when whatever explanations you or any conspiracy nut comes up with are far more ridiculous.

Like what Republicans did with the stimulus bill!

Sorry, I couldn't help it :).

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Invisible_Kid2"]The answers I've heard are still questionable. chessmaster1989

See, here's the thing: you pick on the smallest "questionable" bit and then act like it discredits the entire explanation, when whatever explanations you or any conspiracy nut comes up with are far more ridiculous.

Like what Republicans did with the stimulus bill!

Sorry, I couldn't help it :).

That's usually the Democrats' role.

O YES I DID

[QUOTE="Invisible_Kid2"]I have not heard an answer on tower 7 that fits. Theokhoth

You have not heard no answer that fits the answers you want to hear.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Invisible_Kid2"]I have not heard an answer on tower 7 that fits. Invisible_Kid2

You have not heard no answer that fits the answers you want to hear.

Like I said, you'll always find the smallest discrepancy and pretend like it discredits the entire explanation when more likely than not it's not even a discrepancy.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

See, here's the thing: you pick on the smallest "questionable" bit and then act like it discredits the entire explanation, when whatever explanations you or any conspiracy nut comes up with are far more ridiculous.

Theokhoth

Like what Republicans did with the stimulus bill!

Sorry, I couldn't help it :).

That's usually the Democrats' role.

O YES I DID

....touche....

Well, the Democrats are in power now, so it's the Republicans turn to prevent stuff from happening! :D

Luckily, Democrats have 58 seats in the Senate (possibly 59), so maybe they can actually get some stuff done ;).

I want to hear "we did this to tower 7, because this happend" without hearing "yeah, but the exact same thing happend to another building, and it was worse than what happend to tower 7, and that building wasn't demolished". Or "the fire weakend the steel" without "steel melts at x temp. theres no way". Invisible_Kid2

Steel needs to melt to be weakened?:lol:

[QUOTE="Invisible_Kid2"]I want to hear "we did this to tower 7, because this happend" without hearing "yeah, but the exact same thing happend to another building, and it was worse than what happend to tower 7, and that building wasn't demolished". Or "the fire weakend the steel" without "steel melts at x temp. theres no way". Theokhoth

Steel needs to melt to be weakened?:lol:

[QUOTE="Invisible_Kid2"] Do you work around fuel tanks, bombs, or someone covering information about 9/11? Then really, everything you say is opinion without anything to back them up. I provide a link to further information in my claims.Theokhoth

Get this through your head: I don't need evidence of a bomb because I'm the one saying there was no bomb. The guy saying there was a bomb was wrong, becauseno bomb was found even though he says there was a bomb. I provided over 15 links for my position, most of them addressing the crap you're bringing up right now.

Yet in the 2 hour movie Z. it clearly pointed out the location and time of explosion of each of the bombs and they throughly explained how the building would still be standing if not for the bombs.....

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Invisible_Kid2"] Do you work around fuel tanks, bombs, or someone covering information about 9/11? Then really, everything you say is opinion without anything to back them up. I provide a link to further information in my claims.CoreoVII

Get this through your head: I don't need evidence of a bomb because I'm the one saying there was no bomb. The guy saying there was a bomb was wrong, becauseno bomb was found even though he says there was a bomb. I provided over 15 links for my position, most of them addressing the crap you're bringing up right now.

Yet in the 2 hour movie Z. it clearly pointed out the location and time of explosion of each of the bombs and they throughly explained how the building would still be standing if not for the bombs.....

Z? You mean that crap Zeitgeist? :lol:

Yet, in my links created by real physicists, they explain that the weakening of a single crucial beam wouldknock the entire thing down. Who to believe? People who think Christianity was made as a conspiracy for world domination or scientists?

You know, here's what I find so funny about all of this...

People are trying so hard to prove that there were bombs planted at the base of the WTC, but, even assuming they were planted there, there's nothing to suggest that the terrorists didn't just plant them there :lol:.

This is what I'm talking about. Invisible_Kid2

I addressed the presence of thermite in my opening post.

Could it be that you're ignoring what's being told to you in favor of the same crap that's been refuted?:o You ARE aware that thermite doesn't explode, right?

[QUOTE="CoreoVII"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Get this through your head: I don't need evidence of a bomb because I'm the one saying there was no bomb. The guy saying there was a bomb was wrong, becauseno bomb was found even though he says there was a bomb. I provided over 15 links for my position, most of them addressing the crap you're bringing up right now.

Theokhoth

Yet in the 2 hour movie Z. it clearly pointed out the location and time of explosion of each of the bombs and they throughly explained how the building would still be standing if not for the bombs.....

Z? You mean that crap Zeitgeist? :lol:

Yet, in my links created by real physicists, they explain that the weakening of a single crucial beam wouldknock the entire thing down. Who to believe? People who think Christianity was made as a conspiracy for world domination or scientists?

I'll read over that more throughly. .

You know, here's what I find so funny about all of this...

People are trying so hard to prove that there were bombs planted at the base of the WTC, but, even assuming they were planted there, there's nothing to suggest that the terrorists didn't just plant them there :lol:.

chessmaster1989

But how could they when they were on the planes that didn't exist that were full of holograms?

[QUOTE="CoreoVII"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Get this through your head: I don't need evidence of a bomb because I'm the one saying there was no bomb. The guy saying there was a bomb was wrong, becauseno bomb was found even though he says there was a bomb. I provided over 15 links for my position, most of them addressing the crap you're bringing up right now.

Theokhoth

Yet in the 2 hour movie Z. it clearly pointed out the location and time of explosion of each of the bombs and they throughly explained how the building would still be standing if not for the bombs.....

People who think Christianity was made as a conspiracy for world domination or scientists?

:lol: people actually believe that?

I mean, I don't believe in God, but I lol'd at that :lol:

[QUOTE="Invisible_Kid2"]This is what I'm talking about. Theokhoth

I addressed the presence of thermite in my opening post.

Could it be that you're ignoring what's being told to you in favor of the same crap that's been refuted?:o You ARE aware that thermite doesn't explode, right?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="CoreoVII"]

Yet in the 2 hour movie Z. it clearly pointed out the location and time of explosion of each of the bombs and they throughly explained how the building would still be standing if not for the bombs.....

chessmaster1989

People who think Christianity was made as a conspiracy for world domination or scientists?

:lol: people actually believe that?

I mean, I don't believe in God, but I lol'd at that :lol:

Behold what Zeitgeist has teenagers everywhere spouting.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"][QUOTE="thepwninator"] Your assertion has no reasoning whatsoever to back it. Mine did. Therefore, mine is inherently more valid than yours until you provide reasoning.chessmaster1989

Reducing the steel structure to 60% its rated strength should NOT have made the buildings collapse because it would still be able to support five times the rated load. The structure would have to be reduced to 20% of its rated strength to collapse.

So even the fire was 1022F it would not have been hot enough.

How about a source on that?

:lol: You and I both know what happens when someone provides you with a source.

My conclusion from this and similar threads: Conspiracy theorists are like cult members. No, they ARE cult members. They worship their beliefs and refuse to see any reason at all.

ThePlothole

Kind of how you stopped responding earlier after I provided a source, but you couldn't dispute a single thing on it? :lol:

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"]

My conclusion from this and similar threads: Conspiracy theorists are like cult members. No, they ARE cult members. They worship their beliefs and refuse to see any reason at all.

ownage_denied

Kind of how you stopped responding earlier after I provided a source, but you couldn't dispute a single thing on it? :lol:

No, I mean how I'm not going to reiterate everything after that you choose to ignore.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Reducing the steel structure to 60% its rated strength should NOT have made the buildings collapse because it would still be able to support five times the rated load. The structure would have to be reduced to 20% of its rated strength to collapse.

So even the fire was 1022F it would not have been hot enough.

ownage_denied

How about a source on that?

:lol: You and I both know what happens when someone provides you with a source.

:lol: it's not my fault that you provide me with sources that are not credible and, therefore, not reliable.

[QUOTE="ownage_denied"][QUOTE="ThePlothole"]

My conclusion from this and similar threads: Conspiracy theorists are like cult members. No, they ARE cult members. They worship their beliefs and refuse to see any reason at all.

ThePlothole

Kind of how you stopped responding earlier after I provided a source, but you couldn't dispute a single thing on it? :lol:

No, I mean how I'm not going to reiterate everything after that you choose to ignore.

No, you stopped responding after you couldn't back up your claims about the site I provided not being credible. I can show you the quote if you'd like.

[QUOTE="ownage_denied"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

How about a source on that?

chessmaster1989

:lol: You and I both know what happens when someone provides you with a source.

:lol: it's not my fault that you provide me with sources that are not credible and, therefore, not reliable.

:lol: Because chessmaster1989 gets to pick and choose what he thinks is credible without backing up his claims.

No, you stopped responding after you couldn't back up your claims about the site I provided not being credible. I can show you the quote if you'd like.

ownage_denied

I couldn't back up my claims? Do you even understand what credibility means in regards to news media?

Also, stop with the smilies already. It makes your bias all that more apparent.

:lol: Because chessmaster1989 gets to pick and choose what he thinks is credible without backing up his claims.

ownage_denied

[QUOTE="ownage_denied"]

No, you stopped responding after you couldn't back up your claims about the site I provided not being credible. I can show you the quote if you'd like.

ThePlothole

I couldn't back up my claims? Do you even understand what credibility means in regards to news media?

It certainly doesn't mean that if you don't like the NAME of a website, you ignore it.

You can't just say a website isn't credible when it doesn't benefit you.

Also, if you say something isn't credible, you have to back this up with at least SOME type of evidence.

[QUOTE="ownage_denied"]:lol: Because chessmaster1989 gets to pick and choose what he thinks is credible without backing up his claims.

-Sun_Tzu-

I don't see it :?.

Person A ask for a source. Person B provides source. Person A says but I don't like the name of this source so we can't use it.

Where's the irony in that?

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="ownage_denied"]

:lol: You and I both know what happens when someone provides you with a source.

ownage_denied

:lol: it's not my fault that you provide me with sources that are not credible and, therefore, not reliable.

:lol: Because chessmaster1989 gets to pick and choose what he thinks is credible without backing up his claims.

:lol: No, you just chose to ignore me. I told you I do not trust sources that are blatantly and obviously biased. I think you'll find that true of many people.

[QUOTE="ownage_denied"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

:lol: it's not my fault that you provide me with sources that are not credible and, therefore, not reliable.

chessmaster1989

:lol: Because chessmaster1989 gets to pick and choose what he thinks is credible without backing up his claims.

:lol: No, you just chose to ignore me. I told you I do not trust sources that are blatantly and obviously biased. I think you'll find that true of many people.

What part of you have to back up this claim did you miss?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="ownage_denied"]:lol: Because chessmaster1989 gets to pick and choose what he thinks is credible without backing up his claims.

ownage_denied

I don't see it :?.

Person A ask for a source. Person B provides source. Person A says but I don't like the name of this source so we can't use it.

Where's the irony in that?

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="ownage_denied"]

:lol: Because chessmaster1989 gets to pick and choose what he thinks is credible without backing up his claims.

ownage_denied

:lol: No, you just chose to ignore me. I told you I do not trust sources that are blatantly and obviously biased. I think you'll find that true of many people.

What part of you have to back up this claim did you miss?

Link me back to the site?

As I've also stated regarding the Thermite:

1. When Thermite burns, it produces barium nitrate. That's one of the main products. No barium nitrate was every found.

2. Thermite has never been used in a controlled demolition. It cannot cut a vertical beam, as it cannot burn in any direction other than straight down.

Also, didn't the 'unignited thermite' turn out to be paint chips or something?

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"][QUOTE="ownage_denied"]

No, you stopped responding after you couldn't back up your claims about the site I provided not being credible. I can show you the quote if you'd like.

ownage_denied

I couldn't back up my claims? Do you even understand what credibility means in regards to news media?

It certainly doesn't mean that if you don't like the NAME of a website, you ignore it.

You can't just say a website isn't credible when it doesn't benefit you.

Also, if you say something isn't credible, you have to back this up with at least SOME type of evidence.

A credible site tries to be unbiased. Or at least tries not to make their bias so apparent. That is the only reason I called out on the name.)

A credible site will attempt to verify its sources, and prove that it has if questioned.

A credible site has proven itself through years of journalistic integrity.

A credible site isn't going to be the only source. Others, including the mainstream media, would do everything in their power to get a scope of their own.