The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: dalebert on January 21, 2014, 03:16:16 PM

Title: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: dalebert on January 21, 2014, 03:16:16 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/IIxLxgv.png)

Download the January 20th episode
 (http://i.imgur.com/IIxLxgv.png)
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: Temper on January 21, 2014, 09:46:24 PM
DAMNIT I MISSED THIS.. I wanted to hear this one.. good thing you have a recording :P
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: dalebert on January 21, 2014, 09:52:23 PM
You can even watch the video if you want. It'll stay up for 30 days I believe.

Flaming Freedom LGBT Radio on USTREAM (http://www.ustream.tv/channel/flaming-freedom-lgbt-radio#)
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: Temper on January 21, 2014, 10:57:55 PM
You can even watch the video if you want. It'll stay up for 30 days I believe.

Flaming Freedom LGBT Radio on USTREAM: A show for LGBT folks and small-L libertarians. Next show is Monday night at 8pm Eastern time.. Call-in (http://www.ustream.tv/channel/flaming-freedom-lgbt-radio#)

Ok, you were a wanker! :P

Umm.. rebuttals to your arguments:

1. If they were going to take out the building, why not just let it fall over, why minimize loss:
A. Well if it was done on purpose then it was done for a purpose. If you want to hammer in a nail do you always go for the sludge hammer? Nope. Even our military, at war, tried to do "precision" attacks. And this is against people we are at war with.

2. Smarter people then you have said it absolutely could have happened this way:
A. No they didn't. The NIST used simplistic models to demonstrate the POSSIBILITY of the pancake theory - not the probability. Think magic bullet type shit.

3. What is a false flag operation that is as convoluted as that:
A. All of them. Including the burning of the Reichstag. The attempted sinking of the liberty:  http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html)

4. The towers did not fall at free fall speed:
A. Umm.. http://www.angio.net/personal/climb/speed (http://www.angio.net/personal/climb/speed) says for 226 meters at 1KG (what weight would you use? the building weight?) is 6.79 s actually time for building number 7 to fall: http://www.debunking911.com/Collapse3.jpg (http://www.debunking911.com/Collapse3.jpg) says 9 seconds.. So a difference of 2.21 s when talking about a building of over 700 feet tall matters? That is essentially "free fall" speed. Here are examples of failed controlled demolitions. http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/more-americans-are-rethinking-911/msg661601/#msg661601 (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/more-americans-are-rethinking-911/msg661601/#msg661601) NOTE: none of the buildings just crumble. To use your "stool" analogy, if you knock out a leg of the stool, the whole stool doesn't crumble into dust.

5. Why did they knock down #7:
A. http://www.wtc7.net/background.html (http://www.wtc7.net/background.html) Check out the second to the last thing listed - SEC at the time the SEC was doing a massive investigation on wall street. The building falling destroyed most of the evidence.

6. Either they were incompetent and they couldn't have pulled it off or they weren't and they wouldn't have done it that way:
A. WHAT?! There is a lot that has to happen to fly big jets above US airspace off flight plan without having a F-16 meet up with you within minutes see: http://www.bollyn.com/the-terror-drills-that-became-real (http://www.bollyn.com/the-terror-drills-that-became-real)

7. Come up with a better hypothesis:
A. They blew it up instead of dealing with this: http://joecrubaugh.com/blog/2008/05/05/the-trouble-with-wtc-asbestos/ (http://joecrubaugh.com/blog/2008/05/05/the-trouble-with-wtc-asbestos/)

Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: EarSplittinLoudenBoomer on January 21, 2014, 11:15:29 PM
Sorry, I just never bought into any of this. And being so close to where it all happened, quite frankly I didn't even give any of these conspiracies a listen to until recently (last couple years).
Our government, no matter what you may think of it, would never-ever -- do this devastation to it's own. And I feel the thought of it is offensive and disrespectful to those that lost their lives and their families.
I am generally a very open minded person, and a moderate that treads carefully in the middle of party lines -- but I just cannot (myself) entertain any of this conspiracy talk. I simply don't believe it possible.
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: Temper on January 21, 2014, 11:20:20 PM
Sorry, I just never bought into any of this. And being so close to where it all happened, quite frankly I didn't even give any of these conspiracies a listen to until recently (last couple years).
Our government, no matter what you may think of it, would never-ever -- do this devastation to it's own. And I feel the thought of it is offensive and disrespectful to those that lost their lives and their families.
I am generally a very open minded person, and a moderate that treads carefully in the middle of party lines -- but I just cannot (myself) entertain any of this conspiracy talk. I simply don't believe it possible.

Well that makes sense. I mean if it were possible - it would make you uneasy. And if it did happen that way - well then you might feel an obligation to do something. So it is a lot easier to just put it under "impossible" and stick your head in the sand.

Not only would the government do it. They have done it many many times.

"And I feel the thought of it is offensive and disrespectful to those that lost their lives and their families."

Really, you think it is disrespectful to the victim to question things and try to find the truth? In America? To question authority is unamerican? When did this happen?

I feel it is equally disrespectful to try to speak for another. I think it is reprehensible to speak for someone else who is dead.
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: EarSplittinLoudenBoomer on January 22, 2014, 12:18:18 AM
Yea ... well not speaking FOR them. Just my opinion.
The people that live here and talk about how they this country so much, and how underhanded and evil it is should try living elsewhwere. I mean it only makes sense.

But all in all .. no need to get all riled up there .. everyone is allowed their opinion. Your opinion of my opinion is that I am sticking my head in the sand .. and you have every right to feel that way. Doesn't make it so.
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: Temper on January 22, 2014, 12:26:32 AM
Yea ... well not speaking FOR them. Just my opinion.
The people that live here and talk about how they this country so much, and how underhanded and evil it is should try living elsewhwere. I mean it only makes sense.

But all in all .. no need to get all riled up there .. everyone is allowed their opinion. Your opinion of my opinion is that I am sticking my head in the sand .. and you have every right to feel that way. Doesn't make it so.

Ditto.

But you are saying that you aren't speaking FOR them.. explain this: "And I feel the thought of it is offensive and disrespectful to those that lost their lives and their families."

Because now you are claiming you know their "[offense] and [respect]" systems.

I mean now, logically, your words are now in direct conflict with each other..

Either that or you are using their fate to bolster your own opinion. So, in making a decision, it is often considered a conflict of interest. So whereas many people do not personally know someone directly effected by the carnage and are, therefore, in a better position of make an objective opinion, you want to draw the whole debate into the realm of emotion?

-- well anyway this way or that way I am pretty sure your opinion sucks and I am certain it isn't productive.
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: EarSplittinLoudenBoomer on January 22, 2014, 12:37:05 AM
Yes, as I believe your opinion of our nation "sucks" also.

I have a lot of family that live there, I have a cousin that died responding. No one in my family has voiced, openly at least, that they thought our government was in anyway responsible.

How about Bin Laden --- just some unlucky radical Muslim we decided to make the fall guy ? Or maybe he was not real at all, eh ? Maybe a Bollywood actor we paid to make some shoddy video's and go on this fake manhunt for ?

I would hate to walk around here, live here ... and actually think the ideas you have. Do you hide in your barricaded basement all day ? Jesus, I would. Wow...   it's really out there.

Your turn
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: Temper on January 22, 2014, 03:07:13 PM
Yes, as I believe your opinion of our nation "sucks" also.

No, sorry, this doesn't work here. OUR GOVERNMENT =/= OUR NATION. Those are two COMPLETELY different things. And Governments have a habit of going ape-shit crazy and killing many many people. The US government is no different. Since 9/11 they have proven this with preemptive wars, torture, and otherwise being a bad steward of freedom.
I have a lot of family that live there, I have a cousin that died responding. No one in my family has voiced, openly at least, that they thought our government was in anyway responsible.

How about Bin Laden --- just some unlucky radical Muslim we decided to make the fall guy ? Or maybe he was not real at all, eh ? Maybe a Bollywood actor we paid to make some shoddy video's and go on this fake manhunt for ?

Who cares? No one cares about some guy hiding out in a cave. Bin Laden could not have issued stand down orders on 9/11 preventing F-16's from intercepting 4 planes off course. It has been a LONG HELD STANDARD that a plane off course is a NATIONAL SECURITY HAZARD. This type concept has existed for DECADES..

I would hate to walk around here, live here ... and actually think the ideas you have. Do you hide in your barricaded basement all day ? Jesus, I would. Wow...   it's really out there.

Well, I am glad to see you are actually man enough to admit you can't handle the truth. At least you are honest to yourself about yourself. That's great.

Ultimately though you are deflecting the arguments and trying to derail any real debate with malformed syllogisms.. Like invoking emotional loss, or just claiming I am nutz. Either way - try to stay on point - I mean if you can..
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: EarSplittinLoudenBoomer on January 22, 2014, 08:20:33 PM
ummm    ok

I can see you are incapable of debate without hurling insults ... which you did suck me into (knowingly on my part) with the insertion of "your opinion sucks" .. And I can also see you must have the last word, which I unfortunately (?) will never see.



... Next ...
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: Temper on January 22, 2014, 08:35:32 PM
ummm    ok

I can see you are incapable of debate without hurling insults ... which you did suck me into (knowingly on my part) with the insertion of "your opinion sucks" .. And I can also see you must have the last word, which I unfortunately (?) will never see.



... Next ...

Yes, like Neo-Nazi-Americans are entitled to their opinion too. But I can also say their opinion sucks because it violates morality.

Likewise I did this to your opinion. I pointed out that talking for dead people was not moral. You just claimed you weren't even when strict reading of your words proved otherwise.

Now you are playing the wounded fawn. See you just can't continue becuase well I am not within the realm of "valid" debate now. And of course you are hurt that I said "your _opinion_ sucks.." Somehow that is a direct attack on you, even though you claim I must stay in my room hiding because of what I believe?

Yeah right buddy - you are monumentally full of shit. There - there is an attack. I have devised your most likely motive based on your tactics and determined you are full of shit.
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: Temper on January 22, 2014, 08:43:00 PM

LOL.
(http://i.imgur.com/Gxsq2KK.gif)

By all means if you are going to make arguments this selfish, self centered, and just ridiculous then - please by all means ignore me.

I don't care that you won't see my further posts - others will read what I wrote about you.
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: Ylisium on January 23, 2014, 02:46:57 AM
Yea ... well not speaking FOR them. Just my opinion.
The people that live here and talk about how they this country so much, and how underhanded and evil it is should try living elsewhwere. I mean it only makes sense.

But all in all .. no need to get all riled up there .. everyone is allowed their opinion. Your opinion of my opinion is that I am sticking my head in the sand .. and you have every right to feel that way. Doesn't make it so.

I will try to address your argument in a more respectful manner...

I maintain an open mind on this. Like, you I once thought that any conspiracy theory is ridiculous.

However, now, I feel that it's at least a possibility that our government had a hand in this. I think it unlikely that we were able to sneak tons of explosives and wire the building w/o any notice. However, I'm able to accept that our government created conditions that facilitated the attackers leading up to the events of 9/11. Similar to how FDR provoked the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor.

I also don't think that it's any disrespect to the victims of 9/11 to float these possibilities. Their victim-hood remains the same and I feel sorry for them nonetheless. However, asserting that the cause may have broader implications does more to honor their memory, IMO, because we're illustrating that we desire truth and wish to truly stop this kind of attack from ever happening again.

Just like any other crime, do you want the easy available answer or do you want the answer?

Finally, if you ask, well what did the government have to gain by facilitating the events of 9/11... look how much it's grown by leaps and bounds in the last 13 years.

If anything this was a conspiracy of incompetence, as there were close to a half dozen chances to arrest this plan before 9/11.
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: EarSplittinLoudenBoomer on January 23, 2014, 05:07:29 PM
I completely agree with the incompetence ...  it's been established that there were many warnings in the form of chatter and other concrete intelligence that something was in the works. Most of this wasn't exactly ignored, but discounted due to the timing of each little piece that they became aware of.
And yes, our Government did grow as a direct result of 9-11 ...Among this but not exclusively, Homeland Security was developed and a system in which (in very short terms) "one hand talks to the other". Which, if in place at the time of 9-11, would have made the small pieces of suspicion more credible .. imo.
And I realize how close minded I must sound in not considering a government conspiracy. And all in all I am not this way. Do I think there was something more to the Kennedy assassination ? Indeed. There is a lot that has been covered and glazed .. too much to ignore. And yes, the life of one person -- albeit the President's -- to me definitely do-able by the powers that be at the time. I just don't see our own government annihilating 3,000 of it's own under any circumstances.
I appreciate your response and reasoning .. and it seems I have drawn more ire by my "disrespect to the victims and their families" statement than by my position in the conspiracy itself. So, maybe it's due to being written, possibly I have not presented my position properly ... and for this part I withdraw the statement to give it more thought. But I respectfully retain my position on the conspiracy theory itself.
Thank you again for your rebuttal
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: Temper on January 23, 2014, 06:18:30 PM
How does freedom become slavery? Simple make compromises for safety..

I completely agree with the incompetence ...  it's been established that there were many warnings in the form of chatter and other concrete intelligence that something was in the works.

Oh yeah.. It takes a LONG time to find this:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Delta_Air_Lines_B767-332_N130DL.jpg)

With one of these:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/F-16_June_2008.jpg)

Using this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_traffic_control (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_traffic_control)

Not to mention US Military detection systems..


Most of this wasn't exactly ignored, but discounted due to the timing of each little piece that they became aware of.

But of course boo boo.. There could never be a conspiracy by you government.. So it had to be a harmless oversight..
There is just no precedence for such a thing. (don't look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods))

And yes, our Government did grow as a direct result of 9-11 ...Among this but not exclusively, Homeland Security was developed and a system in which (in very short terms) "one hand talks to the other". Which, if in place at the time of 9-11, would have made the small pieces of suspicion more credible .. imo.

It's like you are saying qui bono lite.. I mean seriously? You don't really think they would kill 3000 people to cash in on this: http://nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/ (http://nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/)

Yeah, who ever heard of a group conspiring to kill 3000 people for a large share of $1,507,829,146,000? I mean SERIOUSLY proposing they killed people at the rate of $502,609,715.33 PER PERSON. I mean no one would kill anyone for over $500 million. That's just absurd.

And I realize how close minded I must sound in not considering a government conspiracy.

It's not being just closed minded, it is failing to critically think. If you can ignore something this blatantly obvious, then you can miss all the subtleties of the world.. all at once. That's pretty scary.

And all in all I am not this way.

I am sure you are not - of course you are the good guy. You just try to shame people for speaking their mind my invoking the deaths of american's in one of the worst terrorist attacks in decades - if not ever.

Do I think there was something more to the Kennedy assassination ? Indeed. There is a lot that has been covered and glazed .. too much to ignore.

Well, sure they could kill the president in a military coup d'état but dropping a building in NY with people in it? That's just crazy. It isn't like we do 100's of drone strikes per year. But I mean those are Foreigners one who learns to disrespect FOREIGN life would never then start disrespecting all life - NEVER. Everyone knows an AMERICAN life is worth at least 1000 "other people".. and there is absolutely nothing wrong with me saying this!

And yes, the life of one person -- albeit the President's -- to me definitely do-able by the powers that be at the time.

Well of course, man. Murders definitely care HOW many they kill. It's not like they would ever TALLEY their kills in some sort of competition..

I just don't see our own government annihilating 3,000 of it's own under any circumstances.

Yeah man. It is way more likely the 2,000,000 air traffic controllers (http://www.natca.org/who_we_are.aspx?zone=Who+We+Are&pID=254 (http://www.natca.org/who_we_are.aspx?zone=Who+We+Are&pID=254)) didn't know something was wrong when:
(http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/docs/4flights.jpg) Big planes went horribly off course.

Then the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command) is staffed with a bunch of RETARDS that twiddled their thumbs for a few hours while:

(http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff475/TwitchingLima/pentanimxox1_zpsa3b5f317.gif)

and

(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/3319351/wtc-1-exploding-o.gif)

and then

(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/4088623/south-tower-collapse-o.gif)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x126512 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x126512)

Yeah it is way more honorable to think this is the good guy:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/George-W-Bush.jpeg)

And this guy is an incompetent moron:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Eberhart_re.jpg)

I appreciate your response and reasoning .. and it seems I have drawn more ire by my "disrespect to the victims and their families" statement than by my position in the conspiracy itself.

It was good man. You first tried to shame someone. Then when they handed it back to you - you played the wounded dignitary. And now you will act like the true diplomat. Nothing wrong with that man. It's not like you tried to insinuate that I, Temper, pissed on the graves of dead people for some mysterious political gain.

So, maybe it's due to being written, possibly I have not presented my position properly ... and for this part I withdraw the statement to give it more thought.

By all means, just withdrawal that shit. I mean don't apologize or nothing - just take it back it's all good. And by all means keep blocking me. You are just so superior man. No way your actions ran afoul some sort of etiquette.

But I respectfully retain my position on the conspiracy theory itself.

Yeah man, by no means should you change your mind man. This is A'Merica man. You are free to vote for Obama to get a free phone man. You are definitely not required to use logic or reason to deduce the truth. That's would just be too much and too crazy. Plus it's fag stuff..

And of course we all have to act like your position that the government COULD NEVER have killed 3,000 people in a false flag attack because YOU DON'T SEE IT EVER HAPPENING is a valid, logical, constructive, and mature position. I mean everyone get's their "opinion right?"

What could possibly go wrong?

(http://www.anywhen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/4585446_orig.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Bundesarchiv_Bild_192-208,_KZ_Mauthausen,_Sowjetische_Kriegsgefangene.jpg)

Like I said, no republic democracy has ever killed massive amounts of people..
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: dalebert on January 23, 2014, 11:08:32 PM
Dood... how long did you spend on that post?
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: Temper on January 24, 2014, 03:11:45 AM
Dood... how long did you spend on that post?

I dunno - 10 minutes? I am very well versed in 9/11 hoopla..

I do agree with the "FTL" position of it obviously doesn't matter. Whatever the truth is - people don't care. I remember from like 2003 til like 2010 I tried convincing everyone. It is just impossible.

ALL BULLSHIT ASIDE the problem is really this:

If people admit that 9/11 was done by the government then that means that the government has run afoul, and that means GREAT HARDSHIP and HUGE RESPONSIBILITY is now required.

So it is just easier for people to say it's all bullshit and people with box cutters hijacked planes and ran them into buildings -

GAME ON! You going to watch the game? Stop talking about fag stuff.. (Idiocracy reference)
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: dalebert on January 24, 2014, 10:54:36 AM
I do agree with the "FTL" position of it obviously doesn't matter. Whatever the truth is - people don't care.

That's pretty much been my position. People spend a lot of time researching this topic and that's an investment of time I just never understood. To me it's like if I knew there was this psycho killer on the loose and we knew with 100% certainty, I mean ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAINTY BASED ON HARD EVIDENCE AND HE TOOK PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY, that he had murdered 20 innocent people and yet no one cared somehow. Then one more murder happens and it's not clear whether he did it and a bunch of people get obsessed, I mean OBSESSED with proving he did as if that would be what makes the difference in swaying people.

I finally broke down and went to the trouble of watching those two debunking videos that I've already linked and every single point that Neal brought up as evidence is absolutely absurd--easily and thorougly debunked with a relatively small investment of time (not hours and hours of tedious research). I'm not seeing the truther 9/11 version as being very likely at all. But so what? It still doesn't matter. There's still a proverbial crazy psycho killer on the loose. It's not like I switched sides over that one incident and now I'm suddenly pro-government. I'm a freakin' anarchist for crying out loud. I still see politicians and the powerful people who control them as lying, greedy, murderous bastards.

I just had someone link me to over three hours of video and "challenge" me to deny the evidence or some such. OVER THREE HOURS! The first minute went by of emotional music playing and buzz words slowly coming out of the screen and I knew this person had no respect for my time and was just preaching to the already thoroughly religious crowd of 9/11 truthers who will sit through those tedious 3+ hours of hyper-emotional video and feel like they're going to change the world with this amazing revelation. Just accept Christ as your savior and you will be saved!
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: Temper on January 24, 2014, 03:14:58 PM
That's pretty much been my position. People spend a lot of time researching this topic and that's an investment of time I just never understood.

You don't understand why people would look for positive proof their government needs to be replaced?

To me it's like if I knew there was this psycho killer on the loose and we knew with 100% certainty, I mean ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAINTY BASED ON HARD EVIDENCE AND HE TOOK PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY, that he had murdered 20 innocent people and yet no one cared somehow. Then one more murder happens and it's not clear whether he did it and a bunch of people get obsessed, I mean OBSESSED with proving he did as if that would be what makes the difference in swaying people.

It isn't tho. Many people do not think that "government is bad." No one would condone killing 3000 civilians tho.

I finally broke down and went to the trouble of watching those two debunking videos that I've already linked and every single point that Neal brought up as evidence is absolutely absurd--easily and thorougly debunked with a relatively small investment of time (not hours and hours of tedious research).

No they aren't. And you have that mental sickness too. Name me the one structure with 1000's of interconnecting supports that fails uniformly - naturally. I mean if a structure such as you house just fell you would be curious as to how, but a building with a height of 1,368 ft falls completely symmetrically down in under 20 seconds and there is nothing strange in your mind? It happened again for WTC7, this time 741ft in ~8 seconds, still PERFECTLY SYMMETRICAL?!

Here is how a building behaves normally:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgc)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofvWWp_Pi88 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofvWWp_Pi88)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSPSgFNnMcM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSPSgFNnMcM)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fms8r2dRu_8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fms8r2dRu_8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtIjUn7_erY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtIjUn7_erY)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf243Pj0S-Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf243Pj0S-Y)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SR87czZOPw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SR87czZOPw)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkblWwWP_do (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkblWwWP_do)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6EhpVRWQU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6EhpVRWQU)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCsV1wr52Ak (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCsV1wr52Ak)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BZTfBgf-0U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BZTfBgf-0U)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsSH1vAtZoc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsSH1vAtZoc)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnnBtKCYQsM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnnBtKCYQsM)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OR85XTk1Mk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OR85XTk1Mk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugTZq1--2Jg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugTZq1--2Jg)

I'm not seeing the truther 9/11 version as being very likely at all. But so what? It still doesn't matter.

It does, because it means your thought patterns in the critically thinking area are severely compromised. Who knows - maybe you are not even gay...nah lol

There's still a proverbial crazy psycho killer on the loose. It's not like I switched sides over that one incident and now I'm suddenly pro-government. I'm a freakin' anarchist for crying out loud. I still see politicians and the powerful people who control them as lying, greedy, murderous bastards.

Maybe, but that still doesn't much work. The problem that plagues governments will infect anything involving mankind. It doesn't much matter. It has to do with not wanting to give up a sure thing for a better thing. So even a system of anarchy can corrupt itself into anything. In fact, since I consider anarchy the lowest form of "governance" on the evolutionary scale, it is certain that anarchy was the original system. That system spawned into what we have. So in the same way this guy says this:

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

-Lysander Spooner

Same thing can be said about anarchy..

I just had someone link me to over three hours of video and "challenge" me to deny the evidence or some such. OVER THREE HOURS! The first minute went by of emotional music playing and buzz words slowly coming out of the screen and I knew this person had no respect for my time and was just preaching to the already thoroughly religious crowd of 9/11 truthers who will sit through those tedious 3+ hours of hyper-emotional video and feel like they're going to change the world with this amazing revelation.

WOAH WOAH WOAH.. No wonder you have your head up your ass. A 3 hour documentary stresses your mind that much? Plus there is a fast forward.

But you don't need to watch all that. JUST CRITICALLY THINK. In what scenario does a structure collapse IN UNIFORM?

Imagine watching a radio tower fall uniform.. how does it do that? Well in has WIRES that keep it from going too far one direction. Now how could a building do that without the wires?

And don't you dare cop out like "you dunno". Or you are "just some silly fag" and what do you know about structures.. This is common sense shit. If you build a WTC1 model out of BALSA WOOD and PAPER (and spray it with a heavy fire retardant), then smash into it with a model 767 and then pour jet fuel in it and set it on fire - At what point are you expecting it to completely crumble at the same time?

Just accept Christ as your savior and you will be saved!

OMG please tell me you are fucking joking..
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: dalebert on January 24, 2014, 04:26:41 PM
No they aren't. And you have that mental sickness too. Name me the one structure with 1000's of interconnecting supports that fails uniformly - naturally. I mean if a structure such as you house just fell you would be curious as to how, but a building with a height of 1,368 ft falls completely symmetrically down in under 20 seconds and there is nothing strange in your mind? It happened again for WTC7, this time 741ft in ~8 seconds, still PERFECTLY SYMMETRICAL?!

Here is how a building behaves normally:

Your premise is ridiculous right off the bat. There was nothing uniform about it. Debris scattered and severely damaged buildings all around it (not just WTC 7). It looked like a Jenga game in slow motion to me, exactly what I would expect based on the damage it experienced. There's nothing bizarre to anyone about how they collapsed except truthers, and I can't for the life of me fathom why.

And... WTF? Why are you comparing it to demolitions? That begs the question. What relevance could those videos possibly have? Compare it to videos of giant skyscrapers hit by the largest jet planes in existence full of jet fuel.

This is as frustrating and pointless as arguing with someone about their religion. Why, oh why, did I even start this conversation with any hope for a rational discussion after having managed to largely avoid it for over a decade?
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: Temper on January 24, 2014, 05:00:20 PM
Your premise is ridiculous right off the bat.

But of course it is. Because you are denying any path to logical reason. Anything I say while I have my position and you know what my position is you will just not accept.

There was nothing uniform about it.

Umm, you don't seem to understand the meaning of uniform failure. Did one side of the building collapse differently causing the building to topple to one side? Nope. It fell uniformly. Magically, all the supports failed in similar fashion to produce a straight down effect.

I mean seriously, you are going to say that this is not uniform?
(http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5_files/wtc-7-small.gif)

Debris scattered and severely damaged buildings all around it (not just WTC 7).

Seems to me you are mistaking uniform and orderly.

It looked like a Jenga game in slow motion to me, exactly what I would expect based on the damage it experienced.

SERIOUSLY? JENGA ALWAYS FALLS OVER TO ONE SIDE!

There's nothing bizarre to anyone about how they collapsed except truthers, and I can't for the life of me fathom why.

Because you are working backwards. It sounds like people claiming that light bulbs "suck up the darkness" instead of emitting light.

And... WTF? Why are you comparing it to demolitions? That begs the question.

Again, you are making mental links and denying my argument because you don't want to go there. I am using failed demolitions because they all have 1 thing in common, parts, but not all, of the structure was compromised. How doesn't matter. One building has the bottom 6-8 floors completely blown up. It then falls 60-80 feet, hits the ground. Now if you follow the rules exhibited on 9/11 the building should crumble from all the floors above it smashing down - but this doesn't happen. The whole building falls then hits the ground, smashes 1-2 floors, comes to a rest and stops.

What relevance could those videos possibly have? Compare it to videos of giant skyscrapers hit by the largest jet planes in existence full of jet fuel.

Umm.. It shows how buildings do not fail uniformly. Really? You are going to just rely on the whole jet fuel thing? WTC 1-2 were DESIGNED to be HIT by a FULLY LOADED 747. And, it remained standing for about an hour after it was hit. So how long do you think jet fuel in an uncontrolled fire burns?

You just keep on reaching.. I mean you want 5 so bad that every 2 numbers adds to five.. 1+1=5 1+2=5 1+3=5 2+1=5

This is as frustrating and pointless as arguing with someone about their religion. Why, oh why, did I even start this conversation with any hope for a rational discussion after having managed to largely avoid it for over a decade?

You are not even trying to have a logic debate. Nor have you ever. You were never open-minded. I might as well try to convince a catholic priest that homosexuality isn't a sin on your behalf. He will just keep pointing to Corinthians.. but in this case, you are the priest. You are using FAITH and not REASON to get to your opinion. Which is fine - call it your belief but don't call it logical.
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: Temper on January 24, 2014, 05:21:30 PM
evidence that steel can be weakened by a jet fuel fire. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2TMVDYpp2Q#)

Like here ya go.. Debunked right?

No so fast, they put 800 gallons underneath 1 I beam. But WTC1&2 had D beams They were 4 1/2 inches thick at the bottom and 2 1/2 thick at the top of the building. They are also in a grid pattern and were interlocked.

Not to mention that most of the jet fuel burned in the explosion:
(http://gallery.hd.org/_tn/std/places-and-sights/_more2001/_more09/US-NY-NYC-World-Trade-Center-attack-20010911-1303GMT-moment-of-collision-of-flight-UA175-Boeing-767-jet-with-south-tower-causing-huge-explosion-seen-from-side-of-entry-2-ANON.jpg)

And at any rate, the steal would not have weakened uniformly causing the building to completely pulverize. It would have FELL OVER like a JENGA BOARD..
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: Temper on January 24, 2014, 05:54:04 PM
http://youtu.be/mmIjDfpTeMc?t=17m7s (http://youtu.be/mmIjDfpTeMc?t=17m7s)

Here we go.. debunked again.. I mean what is the point of putting explosives under the building? Well, that is how you get it to fall completely.

And Jet fuel caused the walls to crack?

In order to have an explosion you need trapped pressure, so:

A plane hit a building, the jet fuel enters an elevator shaft, goes all the way to the bottom, and then explodes? Why wouldn't it just burn?



http://youtu.be/7PpsCCTMP8w?t=5m41s (http://youtu.be/7PpsCCTMP8w?t=5m41s)

Now this is good stuff. I got nothing here. It seems good. I still don't see it falling symmetrically, but this is the best explanation I have ever seen that makes any sense.



http://youtu.be/YxljFOCZ6TU?t=11m24s (http://youtu.be/YxljFOCZ6TU?t=11m24s)

This is good stuff too.. (I am linking to the exact time frames to save you time)

Like I said I stopped researching 9/11 and I am pretty sure this video came AFTER I stopped. Seems to show a plane..



Hrmm.. Well seems to kill off two "smoking guns" I had.. WTC7 and the Pentagon.. I can say I am definitely a lot less sure.

I still find it amazing that 3 buildings fell symmetrically .. but that's all I got.
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: dalebert on January 24, 2014, 07:31:44 PM
It looked like a Jenga game in slow motion to me, exactly what I would expect based on the damage it experienced.

SERIOUSLY? JENGA ALWAYS FALLS OVER TO ONE SIDE!

Okay, I admit that was a really bad example. With Jenga, you are removing supports so that the bottom gets less stable and placing them higher up and building a taller structure that is more stable up top because you're placing them carefully. So yes, it tends to tip over. The WTC towers, on the other hand, were damaged pretty high up in the structure so the big chunk on top is falling on the rest of the tower.

I'm not a structural engineer so when truther's say "that's not believable!", I have no reason to feel that way other than they're saying so. Meanwhile, a lot of other people are accepting the NIST report at face value. I've heard claims by truthers that some engineers say it couldn't have happened that way so it must have been controlled demolition, but I haven't heard a controlled demolition version of events that is anywhere close to believable. I haven't looked into who these doubt-filled engineers are, specifically. I suspect that a lot of the clout would fall out of that claim if I did just as all the clout fell out of claim about the so-called peer-reviewed thermite in the ashes paper once I got the details of that.

Quote
I am using failed demolitions because they all have 1 thing in common, parts, but not all, of the structure was compromised. How doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. A failed demolition is instantaneous damage via explosions in a specific part or parts of the building which I would expect to have all kinds of different random effects depending on where they happened versus a spreading and long-burning fire that gradually reduces the structural integrity in a large area of a building--in this case very near the top of the buildings vs. really low, in which case I would expect them more likely to topple over.

Quote
Umm.. It shows how buildings do not fail uniformly. Really? You are going to just rely on the whole jet fuel thing? WTC 1-2 were DESIGNED to be HIT by a FULLY LOADED 747.

The videos you appear to now be watching address this quite well. A 747 was the biggest plane at the time they were built, decades ago. They're much smaller and slower than what hit the towers. The size, amount of fuel, and speed were all significantly greater. The difference of all combined amount to an exponentially larger amount of destructive energy.

Quote
And, it remained standing for about an hour after it was hit. So how long do you think jet fuel in an uncontrolled fire burns?

No fucking idea. I'm not that kind of engineer. I engineer software. Repeatedly saying to me that what happened isn't scientifically possible still has no meaning to me other than certain people (truthers) keep repeating it like a mantra. Meanwhile, the alternative version--a controlled demolition, has no evidence to support it--no explosions*, no evidence of thermite (which wouldn't work anyway), no viable explanation for how they pulled it off in busy and heavily populated buildings, and no explanation for why they would go about it such an elaborately complex fashion in the first place. For instance, far simpler and less likely to fall apart would be just loading the planes up with enough explosives to blow the top of the building off and set fire to the rest. Wouldn't that be massively destructive and accomplish their goal and look more believable (to truthers) than the way it fell which is somehow, according to you, completely unbelievable? The truther version falls apart for me on multiple levels. The official story only falls apart if I accept truther claims at face value that the destruction as it happened doesn't make engineering sense... because I'm not a structural engineer and I've never seen what happens to giant skyscrapers when the largest planes in existence fly into them.

*Acknowledging there was a sound like an explosion long before the actual collapse that would provide no apparent contribution to the destruction as it actually happened and that was very likely elevators hitting the ground after falling a great distance.
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: Temper on January 24, 2014, 08:06:02 PM
Quote
I am using failed demolitions because they all have 1 thing in common, parts, but not all, of the structure was compromised. How doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. A failed demolition is instantaneous damage via explosions in a specific part or parts of the building which I would expect to have all kinds of different random effects depending on where they happened versus a spreading and long-burning fire that gradually reduces the structural integrity in a large area of a building--in this case very near the top of the buildings vs. really low, in which case I would expect them more likely to topple over.

No it doesn't and this is why people go crazy. In defense of your side you will accept models of child like proportions, but on other models you start talking about how you are missing complex data.

THE POINT, which you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO CONSIDER is the EFFECT of the REST OF THE BUILDING. So first damaged the towers eh? Ok, lets give you that. THE WHOLE BUILDING? I don't think you are saying that. SO WHAT SHOULD THE REST OF THE BUILDING HAVE DONE?

So I show you EXAMPLES of BUILDINGS where suddenly PARTS OF IT ARE GONE - and you do not see this as having a relationship to another building that had sectional failures?

SERIOUSLY? I MEAN FUCKING SERIOUSLY?! THAT'S HOW OBTUSE YOU WANT TO BE? Yeah. I am yelling now. I mean what should happen if aliens teleported the 60-80 floors into space? The building should not have completely crumbled.

Quote
Umm.. It shows how buildings do not fail uniformly. Really? You are going to just rely on the whole jet fuel thing? WTC 1-2 were DESIGNED to be HIT by a FULLY LOADED 747.

The videos you appear to now be watching address this quite well. A 747 was the biggest plane at the time they were built, decades ago. They're much smaller and slower than what hit the towers. The size, amount of fuel, and speed were all significantly greater. The difference of all combined amount to an exponentially larger amount of destructive energy.

(http://theboystravelblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/aircraft_comparisons.jpg)

614 mph (988 km/h)
Boeing 747-400, Top speed
Maximum Fuel Capacity   48,445 U.S. gal (183,380 L)

590 mph (950 km/h)
Boeing 777, Top speed
Maximum Fuel Capacity   31,000 U.S. gal (117,340 L)

Wrong on BOTH POINTS directly from Google (speed) and Boeing (Fuel)...

Quote
And, it remained standing for about an hour after it was hit. So how long do you think jet fuel in an uncontrolled fire burns?

No fucking idea. I'm not that kind of engineer. I engineer software. Repeatedly saying to me that what happened isn't scientifically possible still has no meaning to me other than certain people (truthers) keep repeating it like a mantra. Meanwhile, the alternative version--a controlled demolition, has no evidence to support it--no explosions*, no evidence of thermite (which wouldn't work anyway), no viable explanation for how they pulled it off in busy and heavily populated buildings, and no explanation for why they would go about it such an elaborately complex fashion in the first place. For instance, far simpler and less likely to fall apart would be just loading the planes up with enough explosives to blow the top of the building off and set fire to the rest. Wouldn't that be massively destructive and accomplish their goal and look more believable (to truthers) than the way it fell which is somehow, according to you, completely unbelievable?

What? Jet fuel on fire does not burn for very long.. It just doesn't. Making that simple question into a complex ball of shit shows you are not even TRYING..

It is just a no go in your mind - EXACTLY like the Mormon trying to rehabilitate his gay son.. He just will not accept that some people prefer other things.. His mind will just NOT go there. It just won't.
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: dalebert on January 24, 2014, 08:20:35 PM
SERIOUSLY? I MEAN FUCKING SERIOUSLY?! THAT'S HOW OBTUSE YOU WANT TO BE? Yeah. I am yelling now. I mean what should happen if aliens teleported the 60-80 floors into space? The building should not have completely crumbled.

I don't know. I'm not a structural enginner, but, screaming it might help. If not that, then maybe you should repeat it about 20 more times how unbelievable it is and then maybe I will agree. Don't bother providing a more believable alternative explanation.</sarcasm>

The videos you appear to now be watching address this quite well. A 747 was the biggest plane at the time they were built, decades ago.

That's my bad. They were designed for a 707 and the planes that hit were 767s. More details about the calculations on fuel and speed and so forth provided in just a few minutes of the following video already linked at the starting point of that subject.

http://youtu.be/mmIjDfpTeMc?t=1m40s (http://youtu.be/mmIjDfpTeMc?t=1m40s)


Quote
614 mph (988 km/h)
Boeing 747-400, Top speed
Maximum Fuel Capacity   48,445 U.S. gal (183,380 L)

590 mph (950 km/h)
Boeing 777, Top speed
Maximum Fuel Capacity   31,000 U.S. gal (117,340 L)

Wrong on BOTH POINTS directly from Google (speed) and Boeing (Fuel)...

Wait... you're practically an expert on this having researched it for years and you got it wrong too??
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: Temper on January 24, 2014, 08:41:37 PM
Yeah, on that note, I conclude this debate. At least on my end......

I will just end with this:

It is still government's fault. They are so untrustworthy they, at the very least, have a large group of people convinced they could do this.

this comes from their demeanor and their secrecy..
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: dalebert on January 24, 2014, 09:44:01 PM
It is still government's fault. They are so untrustworthy they, at the very least, have a large group of people convinced they could do this.

this comes from their demeanor and their secrecy..

On that much, we agree.
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: Ylisium on January 26, 2014, 06:02:39 PM
I'm asking because I truly do not know, but is there ever an account given for all the other petroleum products and other flamable materials that also burned (some even acting as an accelerant). I never thought that jet fuel was the only source of combustible material. With everything else that could have and did burn in that fire, I can't help but imagine that the heat was very high and sustainable.
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: Temper on January 26, 2014, 06:45:30 PM
I'm asking because I truly do not know, but is there ever an account given for all the other petroleum products and other flamable materials that also burned (some even acting as an accelerant). I never thought that jet fuel was the only source of combustible material. With everything else that could have and did burn in that fire, I can't help but imagine that the heat was very high and sustainable.

Except after it was bombed the first time they removed all materials that were flammable.Plus a chair doesn't burn very hot - especially a flame retardant one..
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: Ylisium on January 26, 2014, 06:52:20 PM
Wait, what???

So there were no plastics or paper items in either of the Twin Towers? No paper, no computers, fax machines, copiers, plastic bins. Surely there were tons of petroleum based products in the buildings that would have burned if Jet Fuel were introduced as an ignition source.
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: Temper on January 26, 2014, 06:58:43 PM
Wait, what???

So there were no plastics or paper items in either of the Twin Towers? No paper, no computers, fax machines, copiers, plastic bins. Surely there were tons of petroleum based products in the buildings that would have burned if Jet Fuel were introduced as an ignition source.

I am sure there were papers and plastics. However, the furniture were replaced with fire resistant materials.

I mean seriously, in an office building you don't think that office furniture takes up the most space?

And again, many buildings have been engulfed in flames - sometimes for more than 12 hours. Not only don't they collapse - they are usually renovated and reused without major structure rehabilitation.
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: dalebert on January 26, 2014, 07:58:31 PM
This video actually changed my stance on the House of Numbers documentary.

Debunking the AIDS Denialist Movie House of Numbers - Part 1 - Vital Information Missing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-XFeClWlWY#ws)

We spoke about that documentary on the show a few times (http://flamingfreedom.com/?s=house+of+numbers). I'm actually a bit embarrassed that I actually got a bit caught up in that one. I'm planning to issue a retraction on the next show.

http://flamingfreedom.com/?s=house+of+numbers (http://flamingfreedom.com/?s=house+of+numbers)
Title: Re: Neil and his silly conspiracy theories
Post by: Ylisium on January 26, 2014, 10:13:51 PM
Wait, what???

So there were no plastics or paper items in either of the Twin Towers? No paper, no computers, fax machines, copiers, plastic bins. Surely there were tons of petroleum based products in the buildings that would have burned if Jet Fuel were introduced as an ignition source.

I am sure there were papers and plastics. However, the furniture were replaced with fire resistant materials.

I mean seriously, in an office building you don't think that office furniture takes up the most space?

And again, many buildings have been engulfed in flames - sometimes for more than 12 hours. Not only don't they collapse - they are usually renovated and reused without major structure rehabilitation.

I remain skeptical...

But willing to be convinced. Which, as stated before in this thread, doesn't really matter because I still believe the government played a role and even if it didn't, it still doesn't matter, because the whole thing is shit anyways.