Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/9/07 10:44 AM, shohaib wrote: At 2/8/07 10:14 PM, Grammer Copied and pasted a bunch of sentences

Are you serious!?! do you actually believe that??? A World trade center building happened to be weak enough to fall because of “kinks” and some other unseen possibilities.

Makes more sense than a demolition conspiracy... and it actually has facts behind it, rather than mere speculation. Face it, bro... you just got owned.

At 2/9/07 07:17 AM, kaekar wrote: Ok, whoever posted this, you're and easily led automotaun (mindless order-following robot that has no will of it's own). and on top of that, you're an idiot to believe this is some sort of conspiricy. Honestly, I hate Bush. If I could get him out of office by any means neccecary, I would, but this is just plain STUPID!!!!

1: WHY WOULD HE KILL AMERICANS?!?!

To get what he wanted, a war on the Middle East. He's claimed 3,000+ more lives since the war started, think he feels any greef for those 18 year old kids out there dying for nothing?

2: WHY WOULD HE PURPOSEFULLY WANT TO DESTORY ONE OF THE UNITED STATES MOST POWERFUL INCOME PROVIDER?!?!

A-war-on-the-middle-east.

3: JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE THINKS THAT IT'S A CONSPIRICY, DOESN'T MEAN IT IS!!

It's people like YOU that give people like me reasons to kill!!!

/dummysmack

lol.

At 2/9/07 10:51 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 2/9/07 10:44 AM, shohaib wrote: At 2/8/07 10:14 PM, Grammer Copied and pasted a bunch of sentences

Are you serious!?! do you actually believe that??? A World trade center building happened to be weak enough to fall because of “kinks” and some other unseen possibilities.

Makes more sense than a demolition conspiracy... and it actually has facts behind it, rather than mere speculation. Face it, bro... you just got owned.

instead of listening to what other people say, think for yourself.
if i provide links and facts, would that make it true???
because anyone could do that

At 2/9/07 11:02 AM, shohaib wrote:

At 2/9/07 10:51 AM, Ravariel wrote:

instead of listening to what other people say, think for yourself.
if i provide links and facts, would that make it true???
because anyone could do that

if you want links.

here is one pentagon link, based on facts

At 2/9/07 11:55 AM, Grammer wrote:

What wasn't shown on TV? Also, if you expect me to believe the Bush administration is intimidating the entire world media into not reporting a 9/11 conspiracy, yet can't intimidate them into stop reporting the failures in Iraq, then you are insane.

counter debunking. be honest, this is much more believable then popular mechanics.

you dont see this on T.V.

The most unbelievable part of September 11 was the destruction of World Trade Center 7 at 5:20 p.m. It was obviously a controlled demolition. That is why the mainstream media no longer discusses it. (Come to think of it, neither does the former progressive media mention a word about World Trade Center 7 anymore.) A large steel building suddenly collapses in the early evening in one of the world's most important cities and the topic of why it fell is not discussed in polite circles. That's pretty Orwellian.

Hold on.. Wasn't that just a video of someone demolishing some random building?

At 2/9/07 12:17 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 2/9/07 11:58 AM, shohaib wrote:

you dont see this on T.V.

It's amazing, you honestly expect me to believe the entire world media is hiding the truth from the public. I'm utterly shocked. I hope you realize how stupid you sound.

strange, how you dodged the question again. why they dont show tower 7???

The most unbelievable part of September 11 was the destruction of World Trade Center 7 at 5:20 p.m. It was obviously a controlled demolition. That is why the mainstream media no longer discusses it.

Hey, if the Bush admin. can coerce the media into not reporting on any 9/11 conspiracy, do ya think they could get 'em to stop reporting the failures in Iraq? I mean, they can control the media after all.

i never said anything about bush or Bush admin. yet in this topic. you did.

At 2/9/07 12:17 PM, Grammer wrote:

popular mechanics.

Lets say for a second, Grammer, that you were right and and that i and the conspiracy theory was wrong.
you have to agree that this is easily more believable then what popular mechanics has to say. be honest.

(notice the small explosinons on the side of the building.) i garentee you they will find an excuse for that too.

At 2/9/07 03:12 PM, shohaib wrote:

At 2/9/07 12:17 PM, Grammer wrote:

popular mechanics.

Lets say for a second, Grammer, that you were right and and that i and the conspiracy theory was wrong.

lets also say that the media and the government had nothing to do with it.

you have to agree that this is easily more believable then what popular mechanics has to say. be honest.

(notice the small explosinons on the side of the building.) i garentee you they will find an excuse for that too.

again be honest...

At 2/9/07 03:12 PM, shohaib wrote: you have to agree that this is easily more believable then what popular mechanics has to say. be honest.

No... You're retarded. It's all speculative and a bunch of "oh, yeah, but that doesn't PROVE there weren't bombs in there!"

(notice the small explosinons on the side of the building.) i garentee you they will find an excuse for that too.

Yeah, when a building loses its integrity, walls split... those walls don't do so with little energy, and will spew debris from the fault line. Makes a little poof like you see there.

I repeat: You're retarded.

As fun as it is to prove you wrong, let's try to keep it all in one thread, shall we?

My Hero! Grammar to the rescue!

At 2/9/07 03:28 PM, Ravariel wrote:

Yeah, when a building loses its integrity, walls split... those walls don't do so with little energy, and will spew debris from the fault line. Makes a little poof like you see there.

If you’re so smart, explain to me why the whole building fell down all at once without any resistence, if the cause was fire.

only retards believe the Government would do all this.

Hey, a house collapsed that was parallel to the world trade center, must've been the Government.

Unless you have solid proof shut up

Hey Grammar, do you believe, that it is impossible for a conspiracy to exist? (any conspiracy)

Somehow I don't think 9/11 Scholars is exactly a trustworthy source.

And when the tallest buildings in the world blow up right next to you it tends to have an affect on your situation, especially if you're another building.

But I try to keep an open mind. If you think there's a conspiracy, what do you think it is?

At 2/9/07 05:26 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Somehow I don't think 9/11 Scholars is exactly a trustworthy source.

And when the tallest buildings in the world blow up right next to you it tends to have an affect on your situation, especially if you're another building.

But I try to keep an open mind. If you think there's a conspiracy, what do you think it is?

42% believe in a conspiracy. thats too big of a percentage to ignore

At 2/9/07 05:30 PM, shohaib wrote: 42% believe in a conspiracy. thats too big of a percentage to ignore

Appeal to majority is a logical fallacy.

When Newton discovered gravity, few people believed it. Does that mean minorities were wrong and gravity didn't exist until Newton convinced over 50% of the world?

At 2/9/07 05:36 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 2/9/07 05:30 PM, shohaib wrote: 42% believe in a conspiracy. thats too big of a percentage to ignore

Appeal to majority is a logical fallacy.

Wow....I used terribly wording and a bad example. Well, not so much a bad example, but the way I used it was. I meant to say what Peter is saying, it just didn't come out so well in hindsight.

At 2/9/07 05:44 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 2/9/07 05:30 PM, shohaib wrote: 42% believe in a conspiracy. thats too big of a percentage to ignore

36%*

That number is cut even more when you ignore the people who only believe the Bush admin. knew 9/11 was going to happen, but didn't do anything. 16% believe the WTC has planned explosives, 12% believe a missile hit the pentagon. You are in the minority for a reason.

in other words: 42% believe in a conspiracy.

You know Watergate? Didn't happen.

again, you failed to answer the question.

At 2/9/07 03:23 PM, shohaib wrote: again be honest...

I don't have to agree with anything you claim. Every question you've raised about 9/11, already has a logical answer to. If you choose to ignore the science, then you can't blame me.

ok, thats your opinion, but science is on my side.

At 2/9/07 12:21 PM, shohaib wrote:

strange, how you dodged the question again. why they dont show tower 7???

You want an answer...here's a few that have already been given to you.

1. The media was covering the twin towers collapsing....much more devasting and important than WTC 7 which was in all liklihood completely evacuated at the time. I'm pretty sure that even the die hard employees weren't trying to get some overtime that day and were told to go home.

2. On top of the Twin Towers collapsing...the media and government were also trying to figure things out like 'Who did it?'

3. It's generally a smart idea to not increase public turmoil in situations like this. The entire nation was already scared enough that the twin towers went down. Do you honestly think it would have been a good idea to tell them "Hey, it's 5 P.M. now and towers are still coming down like Godzilla is ripping through Tokyo!" If the government can help it, they're not going to increase national hysterics and I think the media was willing to comply on this one. Besides, no one was even in WTC 7 at the time, and no one probably died. The media doesn't care about something that isn't going to get them ratings.

At 2/9/07 05:42 PM, 200monkeys wrote:

At 2/9/07 05:36 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 2/9/07 05:30 PM, shohaib wrote: 42% believe in a conspiracy. thats too big of a percentage to ignore

Appeal to majority is a logical fallacy.

Wow....I used terribly wording and a bad example. Well, not so much a bad example, but the way I used it was. I meant to say what Peter is saying, it just didn't come out so well in hindsight.

ill use your example.
since when did majority equal truth??
When Newton discovered gravity, few people believed it, did that make it false?
no.

Technically, nothing is impossible, but the second a conspiracy theory that is even FEASIBLE, then, maybe I might consider possibly believing one...sometime...

"No one assassinated JFK. His head just did that."

At 2/9/07 05:50 PM, random8982 wrote:

At 2/9/07 12:21 PM, shohaib wrote:

strange, how you dodged the question again. why they dont show tower 7???

You want an answer...here's a few that have already been given to you.

once again, you failed to answer the question.
The third tower was not shown on T.V. because it was not Allowed to be shown.
my question is, why not???

At 2/9/07 05:52 PM, shohaib wrote: When Newton discovered gravity, few people believed it, did that make it false?

No. Did it make it true? No. Do numbers of people believing something make it true or false, or rather what the something is? If everyone in the world suddenly said you're gay, does that mean you're gay?

At 2/9/07 05:57 PM, 200monkeys wrote:

No. Did it make it true? No. Do numbers of people believing something make it true or false, or rather what the something is? If everyone in the world suddenly said you're gay, does that mean you're gay?

nope. so you agree with me

At 2/9/07 05:57 PM, shohaib wrote: once again, you failed to answer the question.
The third tower was not shown on T.V. because it was not Allowed to be shown.
my question is, why not???

At 2/9/07 05:50 PM, random8982 wrote:

3. It's generally a smart idea to not increase public turmoil in situations like this. The entire nation was already scared enough that the twin towers went down. Do you honestly think it would have been a good idea to tell them "Hey, it's 5 P.M. now and towers are still coming down like Godzilla is ripping through Tokyo!" If the government can help it, they're not going to increase national hysterics and I think the media was willing to comply on this one. Besides, no one was even in WTC 7 at the time, and no one probably died. The media doesn't care about something that isn't going to get them ratings.

Ok, Sohaib, I think that presenting this as a conspiracy theory was a mistake. I am inclined to at least give your demolition theory the benefit of the doubt. It is very possible that WTC7 was severely damaged when towers 1 & 2 collapsed, and it was brought down in a controled manner rather than having it (possibly) come down on its own and (possibly) hurting and/or killing civilians. However, it's equally or more likely that it simply received structural damage and came down on its own. I have no theories on the "media blackout" concerning the event, but who the fuck really understands the media? If anyone seriously believed it was a conspiracy why hasn't it been broadcast after the event now (excluding of course radical groups that think EVERYTHING is a conspiracy)? If you stil honestly think it was a conspiracy show me some links that "prove" it was. My bet is you can't . . .

At 2/9/07 03:48 PM, shohaib wrote:

At 2/9/07 03:28 PM, Ravariel wrote:

Yeah, when a building loses its integrity, walls split... those walls don't do so with little energy, and will spew debris from the fault line. Makes a little poof like you see there.

If you’re so smart, explain to me why the whole building fell down all at once without any resistence, if the cause was fire.

Preliminary reports (i.e. before any investigation was done) said fire. Further investigation revealed massive structural damage to the lower floors of the building. Know what happens when you weaken the lower floors of a building? It collapses. Especially when you have fires burning unchecked for hours inside that building. The center portion collapses first, as that is where the majority of the structural damage is located, causing the walls to be pulled inward, and crack. The air inside, compressed by the falling roof/floors, is released through these cracks causing the puffs of dust you claim are explosives. Also, the center collapsing first is what allowed it to fall inside its own footprint. Had the damage been more toward one side of the building the collapse may well have been much different.

At 2/9/07 05:06 PM, shohaib wrote: Hey Grammar, do you believe, that it is impossible for a conspiracy to exist? (any conspiracy)

2 people can keep a secret... if one of them is dead. No, conspiracies don't exist.

At 2/9/07 05:30 PM, shohaib wrote: 42% believe in a conspiracy. thats too big of a percentage to ignore

As was said before... Argumentum ad populum. Logical fallacy. The number of people who believe in X has no bearing on the actual truth of X.

At 2/9/07 05:49 PM, shohaib wrote: ok, thats your opinion, but science is on my side.

No... science is most definitely not on your side. All you have is "it looks like a demolition", "it looks like it fell too fast", "it looks like an explosion"... speculation. Period.

You're retarded.

At 2/9/07 06:10 PM, Grammer wrote:

You know Watergate? Didn't happen.

again, you failed to answer the question.

What do you mean "again"? I just answered your question, don't blame me if you didn't catch it.

my question was, do you believe, that it is impossible for a conspiracy to exist? (any conspiracy)
so, no you didnt answer the question. all i need is a yes or no answer.

(here you copied and pasted some more of the same)

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

Counter Debunking