You can't.

Heat weakens and steel bends. Under millions of pounds of pressure it fails you fucking retard. Go back to your rabbit hole.

So you're a conspiracy nut. Well check this out dumbass.
https://youtu.be/8XMTALBYRNA

Fire, no matter how it is started, let alone a massive impact, will compromise the strength of steel construction.

What, you didn't learn about physics in college?

This is science and math stuff. You're tiny libtard brain can't process it.

Hey OP these guys are correct. You can answer your query by using google. It really is that simple...

We have a wood stove and the place where the burning wood sits has a big bowl from hot embers sitting on it. Once you get steel red hot it bends, etc.

Not only does steel weaken at those temperatures, other things were burning in the twin towers that burned hotter than the jet fuel that started the fire.

9/11 truthers are insane. Almost as bad a birthers

what about the explosive charges and the other building that not hit ?

ilovealexjones Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what about the explosive charges and the other
> building that not hit ?


Why don't you actually read a few things that have actual science behind them, and get back to us. Here's a start:


http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

ilovealexjones Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what about the explosive charges and the other
> building that not hit ?


This is your typical conspiracy nut tactic. Start with a statement about jet fuel. That statement gets disproven. Make no comment, and change the subject to explosions and building 7. It's a never ending process. Never argue with a crazy man.

UKjPM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not only does steel weaken at those temperatures,
> other things were burning in the twin towers that
> burned hotter than the jet fuel that started the
> fire.
>
> 9/11 truthers are insane. Almost as bad a
> birthers


It wasn't planes or jet fuel. Those towers were brought down by a series of controlled detonations, carried out by a young state senator from Illinois named Barack Obama.

amd bush was far far away reading a upside book in front of the news.... seems arranged to me...

Trying to argue with a person with a mental illness is a loosing battle. If it is hot and sunny they will claim it is cold and rainy ect ect.......big pharmaceutical needs to develop a truther pill for these wack jobs, God knows there is enough of them.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/foghorn/ask-foghorn-maintaining-accuracy-when-the-barrel-heats-up/

There was no jet fuel in seven, didnt even get hit.

Hmm lets take a quick look...
on only one day in history 3 biildings collapsed due to being hit by a plane.
oh wait, my bad...one of them wasnt hit by anything at all. B7, the one housing financial records, just randomly collapsed. On the day agter rumsfeld announced we cant find X trillion dollars.

Anyone who isnt appalled by the official storuly is either gullible, has.Zero knowledge of physics, or is simply unintelligent.

Sorry for the spelling...using phone

...... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> just randomly collapsed

Yeah it was totally random. It had nothing at all to do with the pair of thousand+ foot towers that collapsed right next to it. Just suddenly, without warning, it crumbled to the ground. It's completely baffling.

Sure is. When it was over 200m away from the n tower and well over 1000f from the s. And was hit by the same amount of debris that EVERY OTHER BUILDING IN THAT RADIUS was. But iiiits the one that randomly falls.

Its ok...i didnt want to believe our countrys leaders would do this either...i Thought america was the good guys too.

Sure is. When it was over 200m away from the n tower and well over 1000f from the s. And was hit by the same amount of debris that EVERY OTHER BUILDING IN THAT RADIUS was. But iiiits the one that randomly falls.

Its ok...i didnt want to believe our countrys leaders would do this either...i Thought america was the good guys too.

Building 7, which was connected by pedestrian bridges, burned down like 1 & 2.

I think you should be more concerned that you libs elected a terrorist that handed Iran nuclear bombs.

dumbass libturdz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Building 7, which was connected by pedestrian
> bridges, burned down like 1 & 2.
>
> I think you should be more concerned that you libs
> elected a terrorist that handed Iran nuclear
> bombs.


No motherfucker, you're the terrorists. I think you should be concerned with the potential that you and your kind killed innocent Americans as a precursor for war profiteering.

Prove to me that jet fuel can not melt steel beams.

You can't.

on the other hand... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prove to me that jet fuel can not melt steel
> beams.
>
> You can't.


Actually rigorous temp exams are what caused the construction of megabuildings to start with steel. Bc jetfuel range temps Wont melt it. And thats the hottest thing any building would be exposed to.

then why dont airplane engines melt ?

vse445 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> then why dont airplane engines melt ?


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=then+why+dont+airplane+engines+melt+%3F

airplane engines don't melt because the heat has somewhere to go -- it is removed via the exhaust. clever eh?

why doesn't your car engine melt? oh yeah, the water jacket removes heat. run without coolant for a while and see what happens.

the towers melted because the crash removed insulation from the beams which was already inadequate to start. the burning jet fuel kept supplying heat to a mostly enclosed area. the insulation was present on the beams to give people a chance to exit before the beams compromised due to a fire. the engineers planned for a normal fire to create this kind of problem. they didn't plan on a massive impact knocking off the insulation.

Foggy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trying to argue with a person with a mental
> illness is a loosing battle. If it is hot and
> sunny they will claim it is cold and rainy ect
> ect.......big pharmaceutical needs to develop a
> truther pill for these wack jobs, God knows there
> is enough of them.

In other words....libtards.

uUxCt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> airplane engines don't melt because the heat has
> somewhere to go -- it is removed via the exhaust.
> clever eh?
>
> why doesn't your car engine melt? oh yeah, the
> water jacket removes heat. run without coolant
> for a while and see what happens.
>
> the towers melted because the crash removed
> insulation from the beams which was already
> inadequate to start. the burning jet fuel kept
> supplying heat to a mostly enclosed area. the
> insulation was present on the beams to give people
> a chance to exit before the beams compromised due
> to a fire. the engineers planned for a normal
> fire to create this kind of problem. they didn't
> plan on a massive impact knocking off the
> insulation.


Bullshit. Jet fuel does not burn unless it is compressed. Quit trying to be an expert because you don't know what you are talking about.

Hilary 2016 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> uUxCt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > airplane engines don't melt because the heat
> has
> > somewhere to go -- it is removed via the
> exhaust.
> > clever eh?
> >
> > why doesn't your car engine melt? oh yeah, the
> > water jacket removes heat. run without coolant
> > for a while and see what happens.
> >
> > the towers melted because the crash removed
> > insulation from the beams which was already
> > inadequate to start. the burning jet fuel kept
> > supplying heat to a mostly enclosed area. the
> > insulation was present on the beams to give
> people
> > a chance to exit before the beams compromised
> due
> > to a fire. the engineers planned for a normal
> > fire to create this kind of problem. they
> didn't
> > plan on a massive impact knocking off the
> > insulation.
>
>
> Bullshit. Jet fuel does not burn unless it is
> compressed. Quit trying to be an expert because
> you don't know what you are talking about.

Nope, you can light jet fuel with a match.

They use jet fuel in drag cars. Trust me you can easily light it on fire.

It just fuel on burn when compressed then why do the fuel truck have no smoking signs on them?
Attachments:

>Bullshit. Jet fuel does not burn unless it is compressed. Quit trying to be an expert because you don't know what you are talking about.

Funny. Jet fuel is basically kerosene. Have you see a kerosene heater? Does it compress the fuel to burn it?

Perhaps you are thinking of diesel? It burns too without compression. But in a diesel engine the vapor is compressed until it autoignites.

Here's the culprit.
Attachments:

.Hate yourself and your country - but relish this?
f u
Attachments:

>
> Bullshit. Jet fuel does not burn unless it is
> compressed. Quit trying to be an expert because
> you don't know what you are talking about.


What an incredibly uniformed, ignorant comment.

More 2 the story Wrote:
----------------
Re: Prove to me that jet fuel can melt steel beams

You can't.

--------------

We can prove you're a fucking imbecile just by reading your post.

...... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hmm lets take a quick look...
> on only one day in history 3 biildings collapsed
> due to being hit by a plane.
> oh wait, my bad...one of them wasnt hit by
> anything at all. B7, the one housing financial
> records, just randomly collapsed. On the day agter
> rumsfeld announced we cant find X trillion
> dollars.
>
> Anyone who isnt appalled by the official storuly
> is either gullible, has.Zero knowledge of physics,
> or is simply unintelligent.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the government was responsible for the WTC collapse. Literally zero.

It's just people making shit up.

true lies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > Anyone who isnt appalled by the official
> storuly
> > is either gullible, has.Zero knowledge of
> physics,
> > or is simply unintelligent.
>
>

Right. Like believing that jet fuel only burns when compressed, or that a fire in a building can't deform and weaken steel, or that air compressed by a collapsing building can't mimic a controlled demolition. Or, to top it all off, that the government can keep a vast conspiracy of thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of people, all engaged in committing an incredible treason, silent for 14+ years without one whistleblower coming forward.

Idiots.

Check out Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

and see what people who think about this stuff (building design and structural integrity) every day think.

And consider reading at least read some of the "crazy conspiracy" stuff before making up your mind. By the time you are done, "Trust the government" may start to sound a lot like "don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain."

ae911truth.org Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Check out Architects and Engineers for 9/11
> Truth:
>
> http://www.ae911truth.org/
>
> and see what people who think about this stuff
> (building design and structural integrity) every
> day think.
>
> And consider reading at least read some of the
> "crazy conspiracy" stuff before making up your
> mind. By the time you are done, "Trust the
> government" may start to sound a lot like "don't
> pay attention to the man behind the curtain."


A&E for Truth is one of the worst of the crazy conspiracy sites, because it has a veneer of knowledge to it, but it's as crazy as any of them. And nowhere does anyone address the absolute impossibility of carrying out such a conspiracy and getting away with it.

First, I consider myself to be more conservative of center politically

But, to the guy that keeps saying "libtards" are responsible for 9-11 conspiracy theories is wrong in my opinion. It seems to me that far far right wing conspiracy theorists are generally more culpable in the spread of 9-11 Truther nonsense. A la Info Wars, Alex Jones and the like.

Actually, I think someone needs to prove steel melts. I am not sure it does at this point.

The building fire supression system would have put out the fire if it was just jet fuel. It had to have been an explosion of some type, plain and simple. You simply cant argue with these facts unless you are ignorant.

you'll never win an argument against a true conspiracy theorist on any subject (moon, JFK, aliens, ad infinitum. never. no point in trying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2TMVDYpp2Q

the owner of the buildings is Jewish. he even admitted he told them tp 'pull it down' so he could collect the insurance money.

More 2 the story Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can't.

"What difference at this point does it make?"

Duane Carter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The building fire supression system would have put
> out the fire if it was just jet fuel. It had to
> have been an explosion of some type, plain and
> simple. You simply cant argue with these facts
> unless you are ignorant.


Sprinkler systems are intended to suppress small localized fires, not a plane filled with thousands of pounds of fuel crashing into the building even if it still were capable of working. No, a typical system would not put out even a small amount of jet fuel.

Here, I'm going to let you in on a secret known only to members of the Illuminati and those with the observational powers of a 5 year old. Buildings with fire suppression systems still routinely have major fires. Who knew right?

^

Don't bother to mention that water is heavier than jet fuel and would immediately help the fire spread.

Quote:


The simplest solution is usually the correct one. If a large airplane full of jet fuel crashes into an extraordinarily tall building at a high rate of speed, then it was probably the airplane that caused the building to fall, not a cabal of unseen secretive government operatives who committed a mass murder against their own citizens.

Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort.The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors.Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing.Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"

dumbass libturdz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you're a conspiracy nut. Well check this out
> dumbass.
> https://youtu.be/8XMTALBYRNA
>
> Fire, no matter how it is started, let alone a
> massive impact, will compromise the strength of
> steel construction.
>
> What, you didn't learn about physics in college?
>
> This is science and math stuff. You're tiny
> libtard brain can't process it.


More science and engineering graduates are liberal than conservative you dumb fuq. I actually took deforms, statics, materials, and dynamics before getting my masters in structural engineering where I also took courses in failure mechanics of structural beams, material fatigue, and plenty of other courses that my little liberal brain somehow managed to grasp. I then went on to pass the PE and structural supplement. I'm guessing you took Physics 101 and then got a dime a dozen business degree and think you are hot shit with that massive conservative brain of yours.

While you are correct about what you said above, it sounds more like you learned that from watching some cable show rather than actually knowing anything about what you are saying. So feel free to fuck off and die.

It's called a fire suppression system you dumb fuq. Look up the word suppression. Sprinklers don't put out a building fire, they provide enough time for occupants to get out of the building before emergency crews can assist in trying to save the structure. In the case of jet fuel there is nothing any firefighter or sprinkler could do to suppress that. If you don't believe me try to get some, put a drop of it in your hand, light it, and try not to close your hand for as long as you can.

pGpMM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quote:
>
>
> The simplest solution is usually the correct one.
> If a large airplane full of jet fuel crashes into
> an extraordinarily tall building at a high rate of
> speed, then it was probably the airplane that
> caused the building to fall, not a cabal of unseen
> secretive government operatives who committed a
> mass murder against their own citizens.


the explanation with fewest assumptions is usually the best

The craziest thing about this thread is the number of views and responses.

You have been trolled.

The towers were specifically designed to withstand an impact from a commercial airliner the size of the ones that struck them because of their hieght according to the designer.

Speak for yourself Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dumbass libturdz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So you're a conspiracy nut. Well check this out
> > dumbass.
> > https://youtu.be/8XMTALBYRNA
> >
> > Fire, no matter how it is started, let alone a
> > massive impact, will compromise the strength of
> > steel construction.
> >
> > What, you didn't learn about physics in
> college?
> >
> > This is science and math stuff. You're tiny
> > libtard brain can't process it.
>
>
> More science and engineering graduates are liberal
> than conservative you dumb fuq. I actually took
> deforms, statics, materials, and dynamics before
> getting my masters in structural engineering where
> I also took courses in failure mechanics of
> structural beams, material fatigue, and plenty of
> other courses that my little liberal brain somehow
> managed to grasp. I then went on to pass the PE
> and structural supplement. I'm guessing you took
> Physics 101 and then got a dime a dozen business
> degree and think you are hot shit with that
> massive conservative brain of yours.
>

Very doubtful and not supported by my own experience nor any objective surveys that I've seen. In fact, just the opposite. e.g.,

The politics of engineers

Oct 16, 2012 Stephen Mraz | Machine Design

Engineers tend to view themselves as much less liberal and slightly more conservative than the general public, according to a recent survey of over 1,200 readers of MACHINE DESIGN and Electronic Design magazines. The same survey also found that engineers say they are more likely to be Republican (42.1%) or Independent (33.7%) voters, as opposed to Democrats (14.5%). And although over a third of the engineers think Republicans represent the best interests of the engineering community better than Democrats, a majority of engineers (48.1%) believe neither party is really on the side of engineers.

Disigned to withstand Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The towers were specifically designed to withstand
> an impact from a commercial airliner the size of
> the ones that struck them because of their hieght
> according to the designer.

That's stupid.

Sociology 201 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speak for yourself Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > dumbass libturdz Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > So you're a conspiracy nut. Well check this
> out
> > > dumbass.
> > > https://youtu.be/8XMTALBYRNA
> > >
> > > Fire, no matter how it is started, let alone
> a
> > > massive impact, will compromise the strength
> of
> > > steel construction.
> > >
> > > What, you didn't learn about physics in
> > college?
> > >
> > > This is science and math stuff. You're tiny
> > > libtard brain can't process it.
> >
> >
> > More science and engineering graduates are
> liberal
> > than conservative you dumb fuq. I actually took
> > deforms, statics, materials, and dynamics
> before
> > getting my masters in structural engineering
> where
> > I also took courses in failure mechanics of
> > structural beams, material fatigue, and plenty
> of
> > other courses that my little liberal brain
> somehow
> > managed to grasp. I then went on to pass the PE
> > and structural supplement. I'm guessing you
> took
> > Physics 101 and then got a dime a dozen
> business
> > degree and think you are hot shit with that
> > massive conservative brain of yours.
> >
>
> Very doubtful and not supported by my own
> experience nor any objective surveys that I've
> seen. In fact, just the opposite. e.g.,
>
> The politics of engineers
>
> Oct 16, 2012 Stephen Mraz | Machine Design
>
> Engineers tend to view themselves as much less
> liberal and slightly more conservative than the
> general public, according to a recent survey of
> over 1,200 readers of MACHINE DESIGN and
> Electronic Design magazines. The same survey also
> found that engineers say they are more likely to
> be Republican (42.1%) or Independent (33.7%)
> voters, as opposed to Democrats (14.5%). And
> although over a third of the engineers think
> Republicans represent the best interests of the
> engineering community better than Democrats, a
> majority of engineers (48.1%) believe neither
> party is really on the side of engineers.
>
> src="http://machinedesign.com/site-files/machinede
> sign.com/files/archive/machinedesign.com/common/fi
> les/images/politics_fig1.thumbnail.jpg"
> width="200">
> src="http://machinedesign.com/site-files/machinede
> sign.com/files/archive/machinedesign.com/common/fi
> les/images/politics_fig2.thumbnail.jpg"
> width="200">


Lol, your own chart shows more people are not conservative than are. Dumbass wonk, get a real job.

Disigned to withstand Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The towers were specifically designed to withstand
> an impact from a commercial airliner the size of
> the ones that struck them because of their hieght
> according to the designer.


Sort of. The towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 (the largest plane at the time) and it was assumed that the impact would occur at around 200 mph (landing speed) and that the plane would be mostly empty of fuel. Of course, when you say "designed" we're talking about 1960s analysis, which was mostly guesswork. The towers were hit by fully fueled 767s travelling at 400+ mph, vastly more KE than presumed in the 60s.

To put the final nail in your comment, the towers DID withstand the impact of the planes. They didn't fall over, GET IT? It was the fire that brought them down, not the impact.

If "they" hadn't done that "controlled demolition" on WTC 1,2,7- I am totally sure America would have just ignored the planes hitting the buildings and the Pentagon.

I mean that really would have hardly even made the news, right?

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2015 12:38PM by WingNut.

j9pvK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Disigned to withstand Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The towers were specifically designed to
> withstand
> > an impact from a commercial airliner the size
> of
> > the ones that struck them because of their
> hieght
> > according to the designer.
>
>
> Sort of. The towers were designed to withstand
> the impact of a 707 (the largest plane at the
> time) and it was assumed that the impact would
> occur at around 200 mph (landing speed) and that
> the plane would be mostly empty of fuel. Of
> course, when you say "designed" we're talking
> about 1960s analysis, which was mostly guesswork.
> The towers were hit by fully fueled 767s
> travelling at 400+ mph, vastly more KE than
> presumed in the 60s.
>
> To put the final nail in your comment, the towers
> DID withstand the impact of the planes. They
> didn't fall over, GET IT? It was the fire that
> brought them down, not the impact.

They were designed to withstand the fire from the jet fuel as well. Fire could not have brought down those buildings.

And the cherry on top is that building seven wasnt hit anf there was no jet fuel.

It came down in freefall collapsing on its core.

Designed to withstand Wrote:

>
> They were designed to withstand the fire from the
> jet fuel as well. Fire could not have brought down
> those buildings.


That is just wrong. Sorry. And don't think that I didn't notice how you jump-shifted from your first point. Typical conspiracy nut.

Designed to withstand Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And the cherry on top is that building seven wasnt
> hit anf there was no jet fuel.
>
> It came down in freefall collapsing on its core.


Another jump shift, now to building 7. No one says building 7 was hit by a plane. It caught fire, it burned, and collapsed.

The government was probably negligent. Two of the piloting hijackers should've been prevented from getting into the country. Another, Mohammed Atta, was being tracked by the FBI. Some or all of the three were being targeted for CIA and FBI stings to turn them into Al Qaeda undercover informants for the US. Failing that, they let them on their way instead of placing them on the no-flight databases, even after being named by foreign intel services.

facts are facts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Lol, your own chart shows more people are not
> conservative than are. Dumbass wonk, get a real
> job.


Lol, the claim wasn't that more people are not conservative than are. The claim was:

> More science and engineering graduates are liberal
> than conservative you dumb fuq.

Attempting to add in moderates, which still are only the second largest group vs conservatives, in a lame attempt to try to save the pitifully small < 12% number of those who view themselves as liberal (per the claim) is at the level that I'd expect from a Gender Studies major like you.

Hypothesis fails dumbass donk. Just like you did most of your classes.

It was funny when this thread went to the right/left question of where the 9/11 truthers stand. I've know both liberals and libertarians who were truthers.

I wonder though about you right wingers. How many of you laugh at the 9/11 truth conspiracy, but believe in the birther, Jade Helm, chemtrail, FEMA camp, Sandy Hook Hoax, Boston Bombing Hoax conspiracies?

Thermite.

>They were designed to withstand the fire from the jet fuel as well. Fire could not have brought down those buildings.

Actually there were designed to resist the fire. The insulation on the beams was there only to provide enough time to evacuate the building and hopefully bring the fire under control. You can't make something "fireproof".

Engineers are conservative. Not because we aren't sure if something "is enough" but because we know we don't know. This conservatism tends to spill over into your ordinary life.

>Thermite.

For the amount you would need, it would have shown on video. Thermite isn't as precise as explosives and if you are trying to create a controlled demolition, thermite would be the worst possible choice. It burns slowly and doesn't stay where you put it.

NTkm7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >Thermite.
>
> For the amount you would need, it would have shown
> on video. Thermite isn't as precise as explosives
> and if you are trying to create a controlled
> demolition, thermite would be the worst possible
> choice. It burns slowly and doesn't stay where
> you put it.


If the "Thermite" poster is a real truther, he'll come back with "nano-thermite".

The detonation velocity for nano-thermite is still too low. Conventional high explosives would be easier to source, apply and detonate.

ckJXT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The detonation velocity for nano-thermite is still
> too low. Conventional high explosives would be
> easier to source, apply and detonate.


The reason they stick with thermite, nano or otherwise, is that is was purportedly found in the trade center debris. It wasn't, but they hold on to that with a death grip.

LCY4F Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was funny when this thread went to the
> right/left question of where the 9/11 truthers
> stand. I've know both liberals and libertarians
> who were truthers.
>
> I wonder though about you right wingers. How many
> of you laugh at the 9/11 truth conspiracy, but
> believe in the birther, Jade Helm, chemtrail, FEMA
> camp, Sandy Hook Hoax, Boston Bombing Hoax
> conspiracies?


Probably about the same numbers of Lefties who believe in various "Big Oil bought up and is hiding all of the miracle energy inventions," "Big Pharma" has hidden all of the natural cures for diseases, the Jews are behind _______, various conspiracies involving Monsanto/GMOs, vaccines, fluoridated water, chemtrails (which seem to crossover), the white man's government created [crack, sickle cell, _______ ] to kill off the black man, AIDS to kill gays, whatever [insert name of cop killer busted red-handed with multiple witnesses] was framed by 'The Man,' various conspiracies involving Devil Dick Cheney and Halliburton, "Hands up, Don't shoot," etc., etc.

Plenty of nut jobs on all sides. Turns out that Republicans are slightly less likely to believe in conspiracy theories.

"...We combined these questions into one summary measure. This graph shows the percentage of Democrats, Republicans, and independents that showed a strong or medium disposition towards thinking conspiratorially."

Source: Alfred Moore is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Research in Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Cambridge, working on the Conspiracy and Democracy project. Joseph M. Parent and Joseph E. Uscinski are Associate Professors of Political Science at University of Miami and authors of American Conspiracy Theories.

^ The Bilderberg Group blocked the graph in my post!

LCY4F Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was funny when this thread went to the
> right/left question of where the 9/11 truthers
> stand. I've know both liberals and libertarians
> who were truthers.
>
> I wonder though about you right wingers. How many
> of you laugh at the 9/11 truth conspiracy, but
> believe in the birther, Jade Helm, chemtrail, FEMA
> camp, Sandy Hook Hoax, Boston Bombing Hoax
> conspiracies?

Nailed it! Got a good laugh out of your last paragraph. I was shocked that Trump jumped on the birther bandwagon. Completely killed Trumps credibility.

I still contend that the right wing is more prone to conspiracy theories. The most famous conspiracy guy, Alex Jones, is an ultra conservative. And look at Glen Beck, he isn't far behind Jones when it comes to insane ideas.

They used barely any dynamite, not enough to trace. There were insiders who worked there who brought hacksaws to work and they were paid to cut away at the beams in precise locations during their lunch breaks over the course of several years. My uncle caught one of them once but they paid him big to not talk.

conservatardz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I still contend that the right wing is more prone
> to conspiracy theories. The most famous conspiracy
> guy, Alex Jones, is an ultra conservative. And
> look at Glen Beck, he isn't far behind Jones when
> it comes to insane ideas.


Have you met Michael Moore? Sean Penn? David Icke? Jeff Rense? Al Sharpton now and then. Or go read some of Daily Kos. Oh wait... They're just speaking the truth right? lol

Granted Alex Jones and Beck have been very successful in building acts around it. But in most all surveys of such things the whack pack comes out pretty even across the board. Just different choices of nut trees to climb. In a lot of cases they share the same basic conspiracy just coming at it from different directions.

If you ever start to believe that your side is that of the "smart ones" all that you have to do is turn on CSPAN and listen to the callers on their Republican, Democrat, and Independent lines. You'll be rather quickly dissuaded of that idea regardless what side you're on.

[Aliens at Area 51 are real btw.]

pKJup Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Designed to withstand Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And the cherry on top is that building seven
> wasnt
> > hit anf there was no jet fuel.
> >
> > It came down in freefall collapsing on its
> core.
>
>
> Another jump shift, now to building 7. No one
> says building 7 was hit by a plane. It caught
> fire, it burned, and collapsed.


And why wasn't building 7 addressed by the 9/11 Commision?

Designed to withstand Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pKJup Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Designed to withstand Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > And the cherry on top is that building seven
> > wasnt
> > > hit anf there was no jet fuel.
> > >
> > > It came down in freefall collapsing on its
> > core.
> >
> >
> > Another jump shift, now to building 7. No one
> > says building 7 was hit by a plane. It caught
> > fire, it burned, and collapsed.
>
>
> And why wasn't building 7 addressed by the 9/11
> Commision?


The 9/11 Commission didn't address structural questions or cause of the collapse of Towers 1 or 2 or the damage any other buildings in the area either.

Debunking Building 7 nonsense for your reading pleasure:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

The claim is that being dowsed in jet fuel removed much of the heat-retardant material.

Staged terrorist attack
Attachments:

iLester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The claim is that being dowsed in jet fuel removed
> much of the heat-retardant material.


some of that retardant material got stuck in they heads.

iLester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The claim is that being dowsed in jet fuel removed
> much of the heat-retardant material.


No, the insulation was removed by the force of the impact of a fully loaded 767 hitting the buildings at 400+ mph.

Jim Landerson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They used barely any dynamite, not enough to
> trace. There were insiders who worked there who
> brought hacksaws to work and they were paid to cut
> away at the beams in precise locations during
> their lunch breaks over the course of several
> years. My uncle caught one of them once but they
> paid him big to not talk.


Hee hee hee. I think this guy actually believes this.

>I still contend that the right wing is more prone to conspiracy theories. The most famous conspiracy guy, Alex Jones, is an ultra conservative. And look at Glen Beck, he isn't far behind Jones when it comes to insane ideas.


Ah... A graph with two data points.

I am curious. If they didn't use planes, what happened to the people who where on the planes? A massive payoff to keep quiet and live on a tropical island somewhere? Or was a cover story manufactured for every single "passenger"?

Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper for our government to train terrorists to fly planes?

If you are going to create nutty conspiracy theories at least put some though into it.

14 years later, people are still arguing about this.


Tell me about the Mossad conspiracy theories and ancient aliens.

Well the pyramids were built by aliens. The aliens used square blocks to build the pyramids to puzzle us. Building it from a single massive stone block, ceramics or even diamond would have been difficult for the aliens. I mean the aliens have only master interstellar space travel. You can't expect them to be able to have advanced manufacturing techniques.

What about the reptilian humanoids?

What about them? They live with Bigfoot on/in the hollow Earth. Lack of intermediate reptilian forms in the fossil record is proof they are living/evolved on/in the hollow Earth.

Why would Betty Rubble ever lie to me?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a1539/4213805/

Bam

...and how does Mossad fit into all this?

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...and how does Mossad fit into all this?


They were the original posters of the infamous "Nude Photographs" in an attempt to frame you. They aren't happy about what you've been saying about Jews lately from your Yucky24. name

Its true, my cousin's coworkers told him about it.

Fascinating. If only the CIA would be as efficient as the Mossad, we'd have everyone by the balls.