MOST Americans open to alternative explanations to 9/11

No question about it Mike. You are more afraid of the truth than the lie. You have demonstrated that quite convincingly. But it is not the lie that set you free, Mike. It is the truth that sets you free. Seek the truth. That is the honorable thing to do.

 

this is just too darn weird man, i remember watching FOX news and listening to some lunatic go on about Dick Cheaney orchestrating 09/11 from a bunker in Washington. I was wondering if this guy also claimined he had a Marsian for a roomate.

 

That's the world in which you live. I turned my TV off nearly a decade ago.

 

BJ you wouldn't know what truth is if it jumped up and smacked you across the face. You're a conspiracy theorist. End of.

 

No cable in the bunker?

 

So if the 9-11 truthers have a point why do they lie so much and ignore reality. Here are 1o things I have noticed about them.

1. When a sentence begins with "19 hijackers with box cutters..." it is an attempt to make it sound like that is impossible. Here is the thing, in our everyday lives we don't expect someone to stand up and without hesitation cut someone's throat with a box cutter. As for attacking the pilots, two men strapped into seats get attacked from behind is not a surprise. Killing isn't hard, deciding to kill is difficult. Think of the mob. Once the decision is make it appears these guys are fearless, and the hijackers trained to be that way. Studies have been done when something like that happens even highly trained people fail to react in time.

2. Building 7 is always talked about a plane not flying into it. But a very large building fell on it. There was a whole in the building 18 stories tall, there were fires that weaken support beams, the design was not a typical skyscraper and the videos clearly show that the internal structure went first and then the facade. Often truthers show the collapse starting seconds after the internal collapse had started.

3. Leading to the free fall fallacy. It is clear that the twin towers didn't fall at free fall speed. We know because PARTS OF THE BUILDING FELL FASTER THAN THE WAVE OF COLLAPSE. That is a fact documented on every video. As for building 7, it wasn't free fall after 2 seconds, so the roof line starts to fall and then slows down.

4. Footprint. Neither of the buildings fell into their own footprint. In fact the debris was all over the place. That is just another lie.

5. To ignore the fact that 100s of people saw the planes go into the buildings, dozens of videos of the second plane flying into the tower after the first impact, there is a suggestion that this is all CGI. But think about the vast number of people that would have to be in on it. The tons of people in lower manhattan who took video, the people in New Jersey who did the same, news agencies from around the world. Still photos, and of course survivor statements. All are part of a grand conspiracy. Now if the news was in on it why did the initial reports when the first plane crashed did they report it was a small private plane?

6. People are no longer around. People in the towers and on the planes and at the Pentagon died. Those are facts. Someone I knew was on a plane with his partner and child. They are dead. But I am suppose to assume that his death was committed by the government? Or are they just not real?

7. There are so many crazy reasons the conspiracy nuts have. Up to and including a space laser beam that brought the buildings down. Without evidence of any of these crazy ideas they all seem completely feasable to the conspiracy nuts.

8. Anyone who challenges their evidence-free ideas are call shills or sheep. Equating believing one thing with believing everything. I am skeptical but I am also intelligent and able to understand the explanations and find them credible.

9. If you think 9-11 was an inside job, you are likely to believe in conspiracies around virtually every event in the last 100 years. Again while I am willing to entertain evidence to the contrary of any explanation, saying something couldn't happen, that did, is not evidence.

10. Conspiracy promoters tend to have a personal investment into their ideas and they come to define them. It is all they have to feel accomplished.

It is sad that we have to continue to debunk nutty ideas.

 

The debunkers are getting desperate.

It is not comforting to even think that 19 guys with boxcutters can attack the headquarters of the most powerful military the world has ever known. If that is the case, then what good is our military?

But more importantly it is obvious that Karma Mechanic does not have the first clue about building construction. Beams can be weakened all the way to melt and the building will still stand. It is vertical columns that keep buildings standing Karma Mechanic. Columns!

At 1:18 in this simple example of building construction one can observe 9 columns, 3 beams, 13 floor joists, and 2 rim joists.

[video=youtube;iN4ig1i-AKw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN4ig1i-AKw[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN4ig1i-AKw

In order for this simple building to go into freefall all 9 columns have to be cut at precisely the same time. That is pretty easy to see. Cut the 9 columns, and the beams, joists, and walls will go into a freefall collapse.

Highrise buildings have much thicker columns and beams than in the above illustration. Building 7 probably had nearly 100 strong steel columns that had held the building up for decades, I don't know how many columns there were, but they were engineered when the building was designed, and there were a lot of them, and they were 47 stories tall. What the debunkers want everyone to believe is that all the steel columns in WTC Building 7, all 47 stories of them, gave way within seconds of each other because some of the upper floors had been on fire for a few hours. It is completely ridiculous.

Obviously Karma Mechanic does not know what he is talking about otherwise he would not have said "fires that weaken support beams". You have to cut the columns, Karma Mechanic... all the columns... all at once for a building to go into freefall. Now that does not mean that the columns have to be cut on every floor but all the columns have to be cut at strategic locations all at once.

That's what the explosions are all about in this video. They are cutting columns Karma Mechanic not fire weakened beams.

[video=youtube;ERhoNYj9_fg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ERhoNYj9_fg#![/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ERhoNYj9_fg#!

The debunkers are getting desperate.

 

Folks aren't comfortable with the truth of 9/11. They'd rather wish it away by CHOOSING not to believe what actually occurred. Cover my eyes and hope it goes away, kinda thing.

 

In order for this simple building to go into freefall all 9 columns have to be cut at precisely the same time. That is pretty easy to see. Cut the 9 columns, and the beams, joists, and walls will go into a freefall collapse.

yeah, no. The WTC didn't go into free-fall speed. If it had, you would not have viewed debris falling faster than the rest of the building.

You have been debunked by the same videos you claim to support your Nutter wet dream.

 

Close enough to free fall speed to make any major difference.

 

Actually no. HUGE difference. The use of the "free-fall" claim is designed to imply something conspiratorial afoot.

Second, there is no proof beams were cut to enable the collapse.

Third, again you have nothing.

 

'Free fall' or near free fall implies conditions that are only duplicated in a vacuum, in a lab, and is used to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the BS that somehow buildings with vertical steel columns collapse at or near that speed in buildings where those vertical columns would obviously offer a significant amount of resistance some where along the way. Structures don't fall that fast, in that manner, without some sort of 'assistance'. No way, bro.

 

Actually, they do...and they did. Come back when you can actually offer up any proof of your position.

 

Actually, no, they didn't. Not without 'assistance'. Not even close to being possible, bro.

 

You are not telling the truth so you need to cite your source so we can verify your 'inaccurate' statement, because calling you a liar, would be improper so, we won't do that but, please, stop speaking untruths.

 

The call has gone out...mass bombing campaign, dead ahead.

 

The same debunkers over and over and over and over again.

 

Yup...for about a decade now. The "specialists", assigned to the case.

 

The same 'truthers' over and over and ... say, it's a bit like a drawer full of socks!

 

I am proud to be a seeker of truth.

 

Let us know when you figure out if planes hit WTC 1 & 2. Start your seeking there.

 

There we go. What was the assistance?

 

It wasn't an aluminum plane or 45 minutes worth of fire at the top of the structures, that's for sure.

 

Still waiting for your "hypothesis". What caused the collapse of the WTC towers?

 

so why do you deny it and reject it at every opportunity?