9/11 Conspiracy Theory Question

[Steezie]

I was discussing this with someone earlier and I've found that theres one problem with the "controlled demolition" idea (apart from the fact that its ludicrous) that conspiracy theorists cant seem to answer.

The contention is that the WTC was brought down by demolition explosives via a controlled demolition.

For research purposes, I've watched probably several dozen ACTUAL controlled demolitions of buildings and in EVERY SINGLE ONE there is one constant feature.

That is a LOUD and completely audible explosion preceding the collapse. This is not "Well there was a witness who thinks he might have heard an explosion" no this is "I was two miles away and I heard it." ALL of Lower Manhattan would have heard the required explosives needed to bring down such large structures in such a fashion.

There were probably several dozen recording devices trained on the WTC at the time of the collapse and not a single one caught any hint of an explosion the requisite size. The only audio recording I have heard that hinted at something that size has a contested validity.

So why is this? Wheres the explosion?

 

[Cabal]

Uber-secret black ops "silent explosives" is my guess.

 

[joebudda]

Then what caused all of the other explosions?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuq0ANHxvlM&NR=1

 

[Steezie]

Then what caused all of the other explosions?

Do you have anything more official? You'll forgive me if I dont automatically accept two random and un-sourced YouTube videos as authentic.

 

[joebudda]

Do you have anything more official? You'll forgive me if I dont automatically accept two random and un-sourced YouTube videos as authentic.

I will allow you your denial. That is your own choice.

 

[Steezie]

I will allow you your denial. That is your own choice.

So you've got nothing that can be substantiated, gotcha

 

[trunks2k]

So why is this? Wheres the explosion?

It wasn't there, obviously. The most common response I've seen is that it wasn't explosives that were used, but thermite. However, the problem with that is that thermite is a chemical reaction that can't be timed to bring down a building in such a manner nor is it going to cut across the beams.

 

[mont974x4]

It was Bush and a hacksaw, much like Washington with his axe on the famed cherry tree.

 

[joebudda]

So you've got nothing that can be substantiated, gotcha

I don't care what you believe.
I have been persuaded by the evidence.
And I think of myself as a skeptic. Which led to the questions that brought me to where I am today.

 

[Steezie]

It wasn't there, obviously. The most common response I've seen is that it wasn't explosives that were used, but thermite. However, the problem with that is that thermite is a chemical reaction that can't be timed to bring down a building in such a manner nor is it going to cut across the beams.

Thats true, also the evidence that supports the thermite idea is shaky at best. The byproducts of a thermite reaction, aluminum oxide and iron, are not exactly rarities. Especially after a fire and a collision with an airplane.

I don't care what you believe.
I have been persuaded by the evidence.
And I think of myself as a skeptic. Which led to the questions that brought me to where I am today.

Which cant be very far if your basing your belief on two unsourced YouTube videos

 

[joebudda]

Which cant be very far if your basing your belief on two unsourced YouTube videos

Nice strawman.

If you want to believe I base my believe on 40 seconds of video, I don't really care.

All of these threads end up degenerating into immature ad hominem attacks aimed at anyone who questions the "Official Version" and denial of anything that doesn't fit into the "official version". So I will not be playing your little games.

 

[GodGunsAndGlory]

I will allow you your denial. That is your own choice.

Look it over the sound... its not real... no echo in New York... yeah right, it would be bouncing off buildings.

 

[Steezie]

Nice strawman.

If you want to believe I base my believe on 40 seconds of video, I don't really care.

All of these threads end up degenerating into immature ad hominem attacks aimed at anyone who questions the "Official Version" and denial of anything that doesn't fit into the "official version". So I will not be playing your little games.

You dont really give us anything else to work with. You post two un-sourced videos, refuse to give a satisfactory answer when challenged, then YOU proceed to start throwing around insults

 

[mont974x4]

Maybe it was aliens that escaped from Area 51?

 

[joebudda]

You dont really give us anything else to work with. You post two un-sourced videos, refuse to give a satisfactory answer when challenged, then YOU proceed to start throwing around insults

I haven't insulted anyone.

And I have seen many of these threads to know what they always turn into.
The people who believe the official version just turn it into a big joke.

All I will say is the evidence is there. And easy to find if you desire to look.

It takes a lot to persuade me, and I have been persuaded. If you haven't been persuaded, good for you.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Given that time that it would take to set up the amount of explosives needed to bring down the WTC, isn’t it amazing that not one single second of CCTV footage has ever emerged of anyone suspicious entering the building carrying anything that could be construed as explosives.

And of course, if the WTC was an inside job, then Flight 77 must be too. And that leads to even more difficult questions for the conspiracy crowd.

 

[Btodd]

Steezie, truthers aren't interested in answering questions, only in perpetually asking them. The only way to hold those beliefs is to leave everything completely open, and even things that directly contradict each other (like demolitions vs. thermite). I've asked this question in every 9/11 debate we've ever had here, and truthers avoid answering like it's the plague. They don't have any, after almost 7 years.

The thermite hypothesis was created ex nihilo for the very lack of explosions you noted. And now 'Dr.' Judy Wood thinks a secret nuclear weapon brought the towers down (no lie). Like Creationists, the only way to hold your beliefs in light of mountains of evidence to the contrary is to keep moving the bar, and getting more ludicrous each time the bar moves. And always, always.....claim there's a giant conspiracy against you; that's why you have no evidence. It's the other guy's fault.

And JoeBudda.....please don't call yourself a skeptic (it hurts my ears when you say it). It doesn't simply mean, 'one who doubts'. You are no more a skeptic on this issue than you are a Christian on theological ones. If that's an ad hom, it's a damned accurate one.


Btodd

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Steezie, truthers aren't interested in answering questions, only in perpetually asking them. The only way to hold those beliefs is to leave everything completely open, and even things that directly contradict each other (like demolitions vs. thermite). I've asked this question in every 9/11 debate we've ever had here, and truthers avoid answering like it's the plague. They don't have any, after almost 7 years.

The thermite hypothesis was created ex nihilo for the very lack of explosions you noted. And now 'Dr.' Judy Wood thinks a secret nuclear weapon brought the towers down (no lie).Like Creationists, the only way to hold your beliefs in light of mountains of evidence to the contrary is to keep moving the bar, and getting more ludicrous each time the bar moves. And always, always.....claim there's a giant conspiracy against you; that's why you have no evidence. It's the other guy's fault.

And JoeBudda.....please don't call yourself a skeptic (it hurts my ears when you say it). It doesn't simply mean, 'one who doubts'. You are no more a skeptic on this issue than you are a Christian on theological ones. If that's an ad hom, it's a damned accurate one.

Btodd

You are hardly one to call yourself a 'skeptic' either. While you may be skeptical of alternative hypotheses, you have failed to critically examine the official conspiracy theory itself. Perhaps that's why you choose to attack alternative hypotheses, likening them to Creationism without any substantial evidence, instead of defending the 9/11 Commission.

 

[Btodd]

You are hardly one to call yourself a 'skeptic' either. While you may be skeptical of alternative hypotheses, you have failed to critically examine the official conspiracy theory itself. Perhaps that's why you choose to attack alternative hypotheses, likening them to Creationism without any substantial evidence, instead of defending the 9/11 Commission.

You usually don't start this tactic until you've failed a debate for an extended period of time. Are you admitting failure at the START of the debate this time?

I was hoping for your 'but the official story is a conspiracy theory too@!' argument. Anything to avoid the explosions you were asked for, which re-affirms what Steezie has noted. No answers.


Btodd

 

[seeker777]

The biggest conspiracy has always been the fact that there is no conspiracy. Nobody’s out to get you. Nobody gives a s#!t whether you live or die. There, you feel better now?
- Dennis Miller