How to Destroy a 9/11 Truther

reply to post by piddles

I kind of thought the general ATS consensus was that 9/11 was planned in some way, regardless of who or how.

Uuuuuhhh, yeah. I think it's pretty safe to say that debunkers and conspiracy theorists alike agree on that one point.

Originally posted by WarloriousCreed
Oh, did you stop thinking when it came to the dynamic of them loosing their livelyhood? Of course professional demolition workers that specialize in taking down towers are not going to be part of the truth movement. Thats just common sense.

BS.
I am was aviation professional, and I think that truth movement is full of it. All the other aviation professionals I know think the same thing. There is not a single threat made against any of us, its a matter of personal opinion and freedom of speech.

Originally posted by bsbray11
And you've talked to all of them or have a reliable poll of how many think there was something "funny" about the flights on 9/11?

Unlike you, who I know does not work in that field, I have, and I yes I have talked to many of my friends from that field on the topic. They take it as a joke, usually responded to with a roll of the eyes.

reply to post by Whyhi

Yeah I know, that plane should have just bounced off the side of the building and everyone knows steel is totally immune to fire. Nice anti-vaccine picture there too, so much truth that it just boggles the mind.

Hey, I've been wondering...

How does your benefits plan with the federal government fare in comparison to the benefits packages that government employees at that state and local levels have?

[edit on 15-2-2010 by NightGypsy]

You can ask them what they think about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. When gas was $1 a gallon.

Pause....

Wait for that look like...what happened in 93?!?!?!

en.wikipedia.org...

In my opinion, if after nine years, there are still people who can proclaim that 9/11 conspiracy theories have no validity, there are only two possible explanations:

1. They are government agents

2. They are hopelessly ignorant and like to live in a make believe world

Either way, they are both categories of people who no longer deserve the time and energy that the rest of us put into arguing these points with them. They will reap the rewards they deserve. One is committing treason against his own country and the other has the intelligence of a baboon and is incapable of helping any cause that benefits the U.S. anyway.

reply to post by NightGypsy

1. They are government agents

Oh damn, you found me out

2. They are hopelessly ignorant and like to live in a make believe world

Like most conspiracy theorists?

Flag and star, Excellent and entertaining. The trolls can only look foolish tackling this one.

For one I never said titanium is stronger then steel, two 747's never crashed into the towers, look at the maximum speed for the planes that did at low altitude and you'll find it's much lower then 400mph. And yes, a plane will burn from a fire, it's made from aluminum, The cab, wings, just about everything but the engines that involve metal, I use to make planes for a living and the beams that held the planes together are aluminum. You can't compare aluminum to tempered steel designed to hold against a much more incredible amount of heat, pressure etc. Your an idiot for comparing planes to a skyscraper... again, im not using opinion, look up the facts, even boings planes are make out of aluminum and the way they make some of there planes now with carbon fiber thats a solid structure I wouldn't be surprised if it can go faster... anywho, look up your facts, wikipedia the steel on sky scrapers and see what kind of heat it can stand and how hot jet fuel gets (which was the hottest element burning and most burned up during the explosion when the planes hit to begin with, thats where the fire ball came from) Do research before you open your mouth once again.

ALL HAIL THERMAL EXPANSION!

Honestly people that believe the commission's report probably believe there is an invisible man in the sky too.. Can we please start advancing as a civilization? It's pathetic that we're BARELY out of the stone age.. We're a cough away from it.

Originally posted by defcon5
Unlike you, who I know does not work in that field, I have, and I yes I have talked to many of my friends from that field on the topic. They take it as a joke, usually responded to with a roll of the eyes.

I'm sure your friends provide a great data sample, too.

So in other words, no, you don't have statistics/proof to back up your claims. Just your personal opinion.

reply to post by SquirrelNutz


this site is meant for serious disscusion on coinspiracy topics and little do you know we arent all pimply faced greasy fat slobs who have nothing better to do we are trying talk about this stuff so we can share one anothers information and if u come on this site to slander peoples belifs thoughts and veiws u should just leave because u are brainwashed closed minded and a puppet on a string.so keep ur comments to yourself and stay on the topic p.s. all you conspiracy theorists and seekers of truth out there we will prevail against the massesof our brainwashed society!keep on keep'n on

9/11 truthers are individuals who don't believe in history, Islamic terrorism, trapped inside a fantasy world, and lack from any kind of humor or logic.

This thread proves it IMO.

BTW great video. Star and Flag.

Originally posted by xBWOMPx
two 747's never crashed into the towers, look at the maximum speed for the planes that did at low altitude and you'll find it's much lower then 400mph.

The max speed for a 747 is between 594 and 614 Mph, but they were not 747's to begin with, so what is your point?
Max speed on a 767 and 757 is 609 mph...
It has never been stated, to my knowledge, that either aircraft was at top speed. Even still aircraft have no problem with flying at low altitude and high speed, that is why they have hydraulics on the control surfaces.


Aircraft have broken the sound barrier at low altitude, which is vastly faster then the planes on 911.

Originally posted by xBWOMPx
And yes, a plane will burn from a fire, it's made from aluminum, The cab, wings, just about everything but the engines that involve metal, I use to make planes for a living and the beams that held the planes together are aluminum.

And yet the point is that the fuel was an accelerant to ignite other objects which burned. In that NW DC-9 one of the biggest problems they found was the plastic overheads caught fire and produced high temperatures and poisonous fumes.

Originally posted by xBWOMPx
boings planes

Its Boeing not Boing. You claim to have made aircraft, yet you do not know that and that the aircraft on 911 where 757's and 767's not 747's and you do not know how to spell Boeing.... Scary...

Originally posted by xBWOMPx
jet fuel gets (which was the hottest element burning and most burned up during the explosion when the planes hit to begin with, thats where the fire ball came from)

Originally posted by xBWOMPx
The tempered steel on those buildings can withstand 3200 degrees before warping and jet fuel reaches a maximum of 1400 degrees.

Maybe you should go back in time and tell the old blacksmiths that what they were doing with forging steel using only wood, which burns at a MAX of only 900 to 1200 degrees F (and that is Oak!), was impossible. I guess that the truth movement should go debunk them first, since all the items that they left behind that were forged must also be fake?

reply to post by bsbray11


Go to an airport and ask any flight crew coming off a flight. Go sit in a hotel lobby and ask a few as they come in for their overnight. You'll either get a similar response or a smartassed answer. Heck go ask weedwhacker, he is an ATPL pilot (Verified by the staff at ATS), but you know what he is going to say to you.

While your at it ask them about chemtrails too, that should be good for a laugh.

Originally posted by xBWOMPx
The tempered steel on those buildings can withstand 3200 degrees before warping and jet fuel reaches a maximum of 1400 degrees.

Oh, besides the above, where do you get this 1300 degree temperature from, this is from a document about fire damage on differing structural materials:

The Effects of Fire on Structural Systems

3 – Steel

The yield strength of steel is reduced to about half at 550 ºC. At 1000 ºC, the yield strength is 10 percent or less. Because of its high thermal conductivity, the temperature of unprotected internal steelwork normally will vary little from that of the fire. Structural steelwork is, therefore, usually insulated.

Apart from losing practically all of its load-bearing capacity, unprotected steelwork can undergo considerable expansion when sufficiently heated. The coefficient of expansion is 10-5 per degree Celsius. Young’s modulus does not decrease with temperature as rapidly as does yield strength.

Cold-worked reinforced bars, when heated, lose their strength more rapidly than do hot-rolled high-yield bars and mild-steel bars. The differences in properties are even more important after heating. The original yield stress is almost completely recovered on cooling from a temperature of 500 to 600 ºC for all bars but on cooling from 800 ºC, it is reduced by 30 percent for cold-worked bars and by 5 percent for hot-rolled bars.

The loss of strength for prestressing steels occurs at lower stressing temperatures than that for reinforcing bars. Cold-drawn and heat-treated steels lose a part of their strength permanently when heated to temperatures in excess of about 300 ºC and 400 ºC, respectively.

Tempering is heat treating steel, so it loses strength when it reaches 400ºC (752 ºF)...


This is why when vehicles catch on fire under bridges, the bridge often has to be rebuilt. I have seen this happen multiple times in my life. The fire weakens both the cement and the steel in the bridge and it can no longer hold the weight that its required to.

I dont care about a Type-o, everybody does it from time to time and I built cessna planes. Yes, those FIGHTER jets are designed for reaching speeds like that, yes certain grades of steel can melt at 700 degrees I know someone who does that kind of work for a living, there is also steel that has to be strengthened for structures that are as massive as a sky scraper also. There are many diff. grades of steel, aluminum, titanium and so forth. Commercial planes are not meant to fly fast at low altitudes look it up, you'll find they can reach much higher speeds at higher altitudes. The atmosphere is so thick it would shake a commercial plane apart if it flew 576 MPH into the twin towers at a few hundred feet. And for bridges they're made out of rebar and concrete again, I dont know why people are comparing jet fighters to commercial planes that's like comparing a train to a ferrari and comparing a bridge to a sky scraper is different unless your talking about massive bridges like the golden gate bridge thats made out of the same grade steel. And besides the twin towers what about building 7 that had a few debris fall on it and a few level on fire? That one def. doesn't make sense. And to be honest, if the gov. had nothing to hide why cant we see the videos of the plane hitting the pentagon, why couldn't other countries do a full investigation like Japan, they demanded to because they had a few clients that worked there and our gov. beat around the bush with them and they came up with more evidence supporting the fact our gov. murdered they're employees that worked in those buildings. anywho, if there is any possibility which there is it should be investigated not by the gov. but by the people. If they did nothing wrong why are they hiding so much?

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by SquirrelNutz

 

Yes, naturally every 'truther' must be a pimple-faced, overweight, immature, reclusive, adolescent malcontent that has nothing better to do but search conspiracy websites and play world of warcraft*

Well reading hundreds of posts here as done nothing to change my opinion

Wait I think I hear your mom telling you to take out the trash and clean your room....

Alright, tough guy - you're officially being called out. Enough of this hiding behind the keyboard b u lls hit.

Let's both publicly post our Facebook profiles for all the world to see - we'll see who has a social life, talks to girls or [enter whatever benchmark you want].

Waiting...

*by the way, nonconformist (6 posts above) - you realize we're on the same page, and that I was speaking tongue in cheek, right?

Now, to stay on topic - in one of these 9/11 threads someone posted something very articulate about 'truthers' and I'm having trouble finding it: it was 2 ~7-line paragraphs - basically, was along the lines of, "Do you really think 'Truthers' want to believe the stuff we're uncovering? Of course not..." [paraphrasing of course, but it was a great post]




[edit on 2/15/2010 by SquirrelNutz]

reply to post by Whyhi

Like most conspiracy theorists?

Sure, if you say so. We can co-exist in the same cage with a bunch of baboons, as long as you guys have room in there.

At least there wouldn't be anymore arguing over who's smartest.

This was just too good to pass up.

bsbray11 wrote in one post:

My feeling is that the vast majority of experts in relevant fields are completely uneducated

Emphasis mine. Since when do "feelings" constitute hard evidence of the sort he is demanding from others?

He also wrote, in the same post:

So unless you have polls of professionals, you're just making stuff up.

Still waiting for HIS polls.

He then goes on to say, in his very next post:

And you've talked to all of them or have a reliable poll of how many think there was something "funny" about the flights on 9/11?

STILL waiting on his "reliable poll"

If all you're going by is how many of them signed up with the pilots group, you know your reasoning here really sucks. Like I said, put up or shut up. Something besides your personal guesswork.

Again with the put up or shut up, without a willingness to do the same on his own part.

Also, I'm forced to assume that "personal guesswork" somehow differs from personal "feelings" in the minds of some. One is clearly nutty and unreliable to them, and the other is equally clearly to be taken as gospel. I leave it to the reader to figure out which is which.

This particular argument is fraught with such intricacies, which is why I normally never partake in it.

For those who say physics won't allow what happened, I urge you to take a basic course in physics. It will be an eye-opener.

For those who say nothing could have been projected from the buildings, again, I urge a basic education in physics, paying particular attention to what happens when a rapidly burning substance is confined, as in inside a building.

Key words are "dust charge". You also might benefit from examining what happens to a bullet when a rapidly burning charge of gunpowder is set off inside a rifle chamber. Hint: it doesn't fall straight down.

As an extreme example, try to imagine what happens to the inside of a melon if it's put into a press, where all of the main forces are directed... straight down, like the floors in a collapsing building. Hint: the melon innards will follow a trajectory of their own, independent of the 'main' forces. Don't believe me? put a melon in a press and stand next to it. Could be an eye opener, too.

Frankly, all of the ridiculous allegations made by truthers is what turned me off to their arguments to begin with. They are contrary to physics, while claiming to embrace them, not even knowing what they are, or how intricate they can become. It appears to be a matter of who they WANT to believe, who they FEEL like believing, because they can't be troubled to educate themselves in the matter, or even employ the basics of what Einstein called 'thought experiments'.

You know who Einstein was, right? Hint: had something to do with physics. Look it up.

Please, by all means feel free to 'feel' or 'think' as you wish. I don't care to change your minds. However, to at least make the reading interesting as well as entertaining, if you insist on demanding proof, please be prepared to present your counter-proof.

It's the polite thing to do.