(cache) Denmark1976がWhat is your best SCIENTIFIC argument for controlled demolition of the WTC?について記入したコメント

Injustices	Information
911 truth	Wikileaks
Endless War	World Politics
Collapse	Politics Uncensored
Post Collapse	Conspiracy Fact
Social Engineering	PermaCulture
Propaganda	Documentaries
Descent Into Tyranny	Documented Truth
Military Conspiracy	United We Stand
Bad Cop No Donut	NSA Leaks
Palestine	altnewz


Intelligence	Other
Intelligence	UFOs
BlackOPs	Paranormal
False Flag Watch	The Survival Guide
Privacy	UAP
Subliminals	Perma Culture
Activism	Conspiracy Memes
Agenda 21	Conspiracy Best of
Limited Hangouts	High Strangeness

What is your best SCIENTIFIC argument for controlled demolition of the WTC? (self.conspiracy)

thatguyhere92 が 17 時間前投稿

あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

[–]Denmark1976 37 ポイント38 ポイント39 ポイント 14 時間前* (24子コメント)

Building 7. I presume we have all seen the video? It completely collapses in a few seconds, falling at 98% free fall speed most of the way down. It is clearly a demolition job. The Physics doesn't add up, the official story is blatantly wrong.
A Boeing 767 E200 can't fly 510 knot at sea level, the wings and tail would simply fall off. The top speed at 30.000ish feet is however 500ish knot, but air resistance at that altitude is far less of an issue. If a Boeing 767 E200 could fly 510 knot at sea level, then it would be able to fly at sonic speed at 30.000 feet (you may laugh now). The Physics doesn't add up, the official story is blatantly wrong.
Where did all the molten steel come from? There are several video recordings and 100's eye witnesses. Thermal satellite images from the WTC area, take the next day, clearly show the surface in the area, where the 3 buildings stood, having a very temperature. Fire fighters reported that their shoes would melt, when they walked across certain sections of the rubble, and that it continued like that for days. Why would fire fighters report seeing pools of molten steel beneath the WTC ruin for weeks after the attack? Jet fuel doesn't even burn at that high a temperature! The Physics doesn't add up, the official story is blatantly wrong.

There are 100´s of odd things and coincidences. The whole "official story" is gibberish and wouldn't even pass a D grade in applied physics in your average high school. And the corporate owned media keeps ignoring the facts while they mindlessly repeat the government "conspiracy" propaganda.

[+]thatguyhere92[S] スコアが基準値未満のコメント-28 ポイント-27 ポイント-26 ポイント 14 時間前 (22子コメント)

[–]northener101 27 ポイント28 ポイント29 ポイント 13 時間前 (21子コメント)

[+]thatguyhere92[S] スコアが基準値未満のコメント-35 ポイント-34 ポイント-33 ポイント 12 時間前 (20子コメント)

[–]shillsgonnashill 25 ポイント26 ポイント27 ポイント 11 時間前 (17子コメント)

[+]thatguyhere92[S] スコアが基準値未満のコメント-35 ポイント-34 ポイント-33 ポイント 11 時間前 (16子コメント)

[–]chamaelleon 23 ポイント24 ポイント25 ポイント 11 時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]EnoughNoLibsSpam 15 ポイント16 ポイント17 ポイント 10 時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]AizenStarcraft 9 ポイント10 ポイント11 ポイント 11 時間前 (2子コメント)

[+]Revolution1992 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-10 ポイント-9 ポイント-8 ポイント 8 時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]AizenStarcraft 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 7 時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]shillsgonnashill 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 9 時間前 (10子コメント)

[+]thatguyhere92[S] スコアが基準値未満のコメント-12 ポイント-11 ポイント-10 ポイント 8 時間前* (9子コメント)

far as I'm concerned, the official story has holes

The official story does have holes, of course. As an engineering student, the NIST story does have holes. You can't make everything perfect. But the NIST hypothesis is far, far better than any alternative hypothesis out there. The only people who have problems with WTC for the most parts are people who never did and can't do the math. Go get an engineering degree. Claiming the government is "hiding" stuff proves nothing and isn't a groundbreaking thought. You could easily say Mexicans or aliens are hiding stuff. If you don't have exact names, or concrete plots, then you shouldn't be making nonsensical statements. And I think that is the problem with conspiracy theorist. They don't agree with X so it must be Y. Saying controlled demolition is ridiculous, but what is 10000x more ridiculous is automatically assuming that is must have been a "government" job. Why is that your conclusion? Its far more rational to just say terrorist planted the bombs there. Its just dumb to make hypothetical claims with no substance and expect others to believe it. Or I guess I'm just not that dumb.

[–]Cenethle 6 ポイント7 ポイント8 ポイント 6 時間前 (0子コメント)

So the NIST hypothesis which "has holes" is somehow more valid than thinking 9/11 was a more sophisticated operation than let on? You're not even willing to allow speculation on what the holes in the NIST hypothesis are if it contradicts it?

Yes Terrorists, ones who would use fear as a political tool did this. But who are these terrorists? Was it just the 19 Saudis and their handlers with ties to Saudi intelligence, you know the country with the royalty being good friends with the Bushes? The neocons got lucky and got to use all their shiny new battle plans they've been developing for the region is that it?

In all other matters of truth it's simple to gather scientific evidence and convince a crowd of people. But with political truth and reality, it's an ever warped landscape by the various powers with stakes on outcomes. And they if they can will warp perceptions of reality to fit their needs. This was coincidently enough with the Iraq war.

[–]junnies 6 ポイント7 ポイント8 ポイント 3 時間前* (3子コメント)

OP why are you making arguments based on your own ignorance? You keep talking about how dumb it is to make hypothetical claims with no substance but have you actually done the research behind these 'hypothetical claims'? Furthermore, you take one variable strand of thought within the conspiracy community and assume that the majority share an irrefutable belief in it. Again, this is because of your ignorance.

"I too reject evolution as a scientific theory because I have never studied the subject and thus am qualified to assert that there is no evidence."

"I too reject 9/11 conspiracy theories because I have never studied them and thus am qualified to assert that there is no substance behind them."

This is basically what you are demonstrating. Please, your ignorance DOES NOT qualify you as an expert on what is rational or not.

There are researchers who base their work on official documents, official policies and what was said on the record by government officials and qualified experts regarding 9/11. There are researchers who stick with their knowledge of their personal domains (be it piloting, engineering, physics, etc). There are some researchers who do work on hypotheticals and explore why it was possible that xxx could have been done (eg outlying the possibility of how explosives could be set up). There are some who see 9/11 as just another piece of the puzzle and see it as part of a grander narrative.

The comments you replied to only stuck to how the official story doesn't add up. You are the one projecting your assumptions of 'SO YOU ARE SAYING THEY SNUCK EXPLOSIVES IN?", 'dae martians', 'they dont agree with x so it must be y', 'secret goal of world power'. You have a childish and naive idea on what the 'typical conspiracy theorist' must be like and you have demonstrated your projections when the comments you replied to simply stated that the official story didn't add up and that the physics of the collapse of the buildings was off.

[–]feegeee 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 2 時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]shillsgonnashill 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 1 時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]thatguyhere92[S] [スコア非表示] 7 分前 (0子コメント)

[–]grabberfish 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント 3 時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]thatguyhere92[S] [スコア非表示] 12 分前 (0子コメント)

[–]kgt5003 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 3 時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]thatguyhere92[S] [スコア非表示] 14 分前 (0子コメント)

[–]shadowofashadow 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 3 時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]northener101 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 2 時間前* (0子コメント)

[+]Badel2 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-7 ポイント-6 ポイント-5 ポイント 5 時間前 (0子コメント)

π Rendered by PID 18478 on app-186 at 2015-05-11 15:24:45.903877+00:00 running a77d310 country code: JP.

conspiracy

Rules of Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/rules

Rules of r/Conspiracy:

Related subreddits:

Conspiracy AMAs

Non-reddit resources

調停者