Jeez. I'm watching a special right now on the mechanism of the WTC structures' collapse after the 9/11 attacks. These people are beyond stupid. They are simply psychotic. Discuss.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
"Truthers" and 9/11
- Thread starter Munjibunga
- Start date
- Status
Do you mean the theory that the burning jet fuel turned the core support beams into molten metal?
Popular Mechanics Guide to 9/11: Invalid Link Removed
Required reading for anybody stupid enough to believe the conspiracies.
Required reading for anybody stupid enough to believe the conspiracies.
Popular Mechanics is an agent of the government and directly responsible for the development of the silent black helicopters and KIT.
Mike
Those guys make me laugh. It's always some gas station attendant that thinks he has a Ph.D in structural engineering. Here is some good reading as well:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
bongomania
Commercial User
If you're talking about the 9/11 conspiracies thing that I saw on the History channel this morning, I went on a ****ing rage about how stupid the claims were earlier today.
Of course, I don't discuss politics and such here, so all I'm going to say is that I'm just utterly dumbfounded at how incredibly stupid these otherwise very intelligent people are when it comes to their conspiracy theories.
Of course, I don't discuss politics and such here, so all I'm going to say is that I'm just utterly dumbfounded at how incredibly stupid these otherwise very intelligent people are when it comes to their conspiracy theories.
the 9-11 commission contended that the fires from the jet fuel burned hot enough to weaken the steel, which caused the structural issues which led to the collapse.
I can probably swing either way, with the exception of building 7. I've yet to hear a good explanation for that one.
Yeah, I just got done watching that and I still feel a lingering sense of annoyance. It just seems like that the "Truthers" argument goes along the lines of:
"Well, if you look at _____ it points to controlled demolitions." *looks at a mountain of evidence presented by professionals and experts on the subject that refute his claim* "Uh... well... um, THAT'S ALL IRRELEVANT."
"Why is that irrelevant?"
"Because... um... uh... CONSPIRACY! BLACK HELICOPTERS! SECOND GUNMAN ON THE GRASSY KNOLL!"
And I swear, that young kid... god, I can only imagine the amount of beatings he took in high school. Just looking at his face triggers my involuntary "punch" reflex, and that's BEFORE he starts talking.
"Well, if you look at _____ it points to controlled demolitions." *looks at a mountain of evidence presented by professionals and experts on the subject that refute his claim* "Uh... well... um, THAT'S ALL IRRELEVANT."
"Why is that irrelevant?"
"Because... um... uh... CONSPIRACY! BLACK HELICOPTERS! SECOND GUNMAN ON THE GRASSY KNOLL!"
And I swear, that young kid... god, I can only imagine the amount of beatings he took in high school. Just looking at his face triggers my involuntary "punch" reflex, and that's BEFORE he starts talking.
I think my lack of blind belief of the stated truth is because of the fact that two buildings designed to withstand plane impacts with planes fell due to plane crashes. I also have to wonder about the thoughts/ explinations of architects and engineers for truth. I'm also not subscribing to missles etc.
- Status
