Short video: "I Was A Deluded 9/11 Truther"

by bohm 141 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  bohm

  badseed: "okay so you have a big metal box with wings travelling 200mph along a road. Do you logicallly think it will take into the air?"

  What do you believe? that someone carefully planted explosives inside the building, then let it burn for 7 hours (presumeably not very good for the wiring!), then after the building began to bulge they detonated some of the explosives making the middle of the building come down, then later detonated the rest, making the building fall in a way which is suspicious?

  Is that what you belive?
• 

  garbonzo

  Anyone who disagrees with the truthers are part of the conspiracy. xD

  It is weird how the building just collapsed down in a straight line like a controlled demolition. And if the plane only hit 1 part of the building, how did all the other beams collapse? And even if they did collapase, then the top of the building would fall down to the ground since it would be at an angle. Why the hell would the whole building fall? And both buildings fell the exact same way. How the hell can just a plane bring down a whole building? Doesn't make sense. By this logic, why didn't the whole Pentagon fall because the plane hit 1 side of it? xD

  But hey, what do I know about explosives...
• 

  garbonzo

  What do you believe? that someone carefully planted explosives inside the building, then let it burn for 7 hours (presumeably not very good for the wiring!), then after the building began to bulge they detonated some of the explosives making the middle of the building come down, then later detonated the rest, making the building fall in a way which is suspicious?

  Is that what you belive?

  It didn't burn for 7 hours? There was no bulge in the building? It fell all at once, just like you'd see in a controlled demolition.
• 

  badseed

  I'd love to see a computer model explaining your theory.
• 

  bohm

  There was no bulge in the building?

  according to expert eye-witness there were.

  It didn't burn for 7 hours?

  it is hard to tell if that is a question or a statement.
• 

  bohm

  badseed: What is your theory?
• 

  badseed

  badseed: "okay so you have a big metal box with wings travelling 200mph along a road. Do you logicallly think it will take into the air?

  I didn't say that, but chances are it won't stay on the road too long.

  In my opinion, if it looks like demolition, it's possible that it is. But if you take your computer models, I'd love to see how many times it would show the building reacting the way it did.
• 

  badseed

  I don't have a theory. I don't know what happened. Only that I don't believe the building would've fell the way it did without help. That's all really.
• 

  bohm

  badseed: How can you claim ignorance in terms of knowing what happened, yet at the same time claim you know the buildings could not fall without help?

  I am not the person who claim to have a good idea about how buildings with this exact structure behave under fire and structural damaga. you are. you are the person who claim they could not fall down like they did because of something you know about how buildings (like these) behave under fire.

  that is an assertion you need to support with evidence.
• 

  badseed

  OK, well you started the thread. Show me another building which has collapsed the same way without help and I'll agree with you. How's that sound. Oh right, building 7 is the only one. Then you can't claim you know either.