[9/11] Let's have a discussion.
- Thread starter Scuzzle
- Start date
fartiusstinkius
Veteran XV
These threads are great at seeing how different people reason and the public's different levels of understanding of logic, physical theories, and the interplay between those two concepts.
It's quite interesting.
It's quite interesting.
escapedturkey
Veteran-4
nist also claims there is no proof of molten steel..
I don't believe there ever was? If there was molten steel it was under the pile of rubble where insulation effects caused more heat.
Molten Steel that NIST denies
The more I read from 9/11 truthers, the more I start to realize that their entire argument boils down to looking at photographs or videos of the attacks and saying "Well that's not what I'd expect to happen!"
Take the nuts who think that a missile hit the pentagon, for instance. You'd have to believe that the government hijacked a plane with ~58 people on board, disappeared the entire plane along with all of its passengers, flew another aircraft capable of firing a missile to the Pentagon (which is close to a crowded highway), hit the Pentagon with said missile, placed large amounts of airplane wreckage at the site, and did all of this in broad daylight when many of the above activities could be clearly seen.
That plan by itself is pretty damn stupid, but it's even worse when you realize that it would have been infinitely more easy to just crash the plane into the Pentagon. The second scenario wouldn't even contradict their broader beliefs about a 9/11 conspiracy; the only thing they would have to abandon is the belief that a missile struck the Pentagon. Yet they still cling to that view, as convoluted and ridiculous as it is, because they saw a few pictures of the Pentagon lawn after the attack and, well, it just doesn't look how they expected it would.
Take the nuts who think that a missile hit the pentagon, for instance. You'd have to believe that the government hijacked a plane with ~58 people on board, disappeared the entire plane along with all of its passengers, flew another aircraft capable of firing a missile to the Pentagon (which is close to a crowded highway), hit the Pentagon with said missile, placed large amounts of airplane wreckage at the site, and did all of this in broad daylight when many of the above activities could be clearly seen.
That plan by itself is pretty damn stupid, but it's even worse when you realize that it would have been infinitely more easy to just crash the plane into the Pentagon. The second scenario wouldn't even contradict their broader beliefs about a 9/11 conspiracy; the only thing they would have to abandon is the belief that a missile struck the Pentagon. Yet they still cling to that view, as convoluted and ridiculous as it is, because they saw a few pictures of the Pentagon lawn after the attack and, well, it just doesn't look how they expected it would.
Saw the first pic, realized they were dumb.
It's not like there's metal stuff in an office building ya know?
/sarcasm>
Why would they do that when they could just abduct a passenger plane like they did with Flights 11 and 175?
What about the identities of the people listed as being aboard Flight 77, were they created out of thin air by the government along with their families?
And again, why would you carry out of all this when the plane would be so easily viewable by so many people?