The Official Goatse Thread

Doesn't have to be.  Just a path of least resistance for the air.

That's my point. The air ducts and dismantled structural chaos of every floor above it doesn't offer less resistance than the random point in a pane of glass on the airtight exterior?

The funny thing is all your arguments do not work. Just like any conspiracy theory. The empire state building has a completely different structural support system. The planes that hit the twin towers had completely full fuel tanks. The metal lost all structural integrity, then the cement brought itself down. Guess how they demo a building? They blow out the supports, then let it's weight bring it down. Wow. That actually makes.... sense.

Maybe...maybe I'll be generous and say it makes sense for a few floors near the crash site. But how the hell did all the rest of the floors lose their integrity? 

Maybe...maybe I'll be generous and say it makes sense for a few floors near the crash site. But how the hell did all the rest of the floors lose their integrity? 

The theory is, their compounding weight crashing down, structurally collapsed each floor, attaining free-fall speed. My toothpick bridges in elementary school seem to discount this theory though.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on September 15, 2008, 10:13:12 AM

Doesn't have to be.  Just a path of least resistance for the air.

That's my point. The air ducts and dismantled structural chaos of every floor above it doesn't offer less resistance than the random point in a pane of glass on the airtight exterior?

No, if you notice it wasn't on every floor.  Just when the pressure would build up and blow out every once in a while.

Quote from: Nightmare on September 15, 2008, 10:18:07 AM

Maybe...maybe I'll be generous and say it makes sense for a few floors near the crash site. But how the hell did all the rest of the floors lose their integrity? 

The theory is, their compounding weight crashing down, structurally collapsed each floor, attaining free-fall speed. My toothpick bridges in elementary school seem to discount this theory though.

But, the steel girders were built to account for this, and even if they were built incorrectly they should have put some sort of force against the falling...which isn't apparent in the WTC videos. Obviously they held up the building for 50 years so they couldn't have been as weak as you say.

If you try to demolish a skyscraper, by destroying a few of the middle floors, it won't happen.

also how do u explain the pentagon? the plane disapeared? LOL

there was a documentary on about these conspiracy theories last week, it explained away the pentagon one pretty well as far as I remember

also how do u explain the pentagon? the plane disapeared? LOL

The plane didn't (sic) disapear. Are you referring to the lack of pictures? Well public domain photos didn't happen until after cleanup was well underway.

So basically your argument is, you haven't seen pictures of a plane, and neither has anyone else.

I can't believe we're having a debate on this in CN.

I can't believe we're having a debate on this in CN.

Well, the OP certainly belongs here.

Well I shall believe it is a missile until the Government releases the confiscated vids of it (being a missile.)

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on September 15, 2008, 11:50:06 AM

I can't believe we're having a debate on this in CN.

Well, the OP certainly belongs here.

To be honest, I blame myself for turning this into a valid discussion.  I had to explain to Wardogg about the "nothing is sacred" rule of the Internet.  He took the OP way too seriously.

Well I shall believe it is a missile until the Government releases the confiscated vids of it (being a missile.)

Yes, all the witnesses that found airplane parts... Wouldn't it be more convenient for the government to run a third plane into the pentagon. Rather than fuck up their GIANT scheme. If they can steal two planes, why is a third one so hard. How did they get all these families to magically lose people that were on the flight that never happened. How did these people disappear. The plane makes 10 times more sense than the missile.

Isn't it kind of funny though how most of the people who disbelieve the conspiracy are usually right-wing conservative Uncle Sams?

LOL at ignorance.

LOL at stereotypes.

Hey it's true? 

Quote from: Raist on September 15, 2008, 12:07:33 PM

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on September 15, 2008, 11:50:06 AM

I can't believe we're having a debate on this in CN.

Well, the OP certainly belongs here.

To be honest, I blame myself for turning this into a valid discussion.  I had to explain to Wardogg about the "nothing is sacred" rule of the Internet.  He took the OP way too seriously.

No, I took Muffz comments to the OP way too serious.  Couldn't let it slide though.

Hey it's true? 

No, it isn't. Most are more along the lines of left wing.

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on September 12, 2008, 04:57:45 PM

If you feel that the 9/11 attacks were wrong, then why did you do them?

Osama didn't destroy the buildings! He was employed by the CIA (for a second time) to hijack the planes! The US did the dirty work by planting demo charges!

the evidence:

-the wtc was built to withstand the impact of large passenger planes
-70 years earlier, a large military transport plane crashed into the empire state building...and nothing happened to the building
-there are secondary and tertiary explosions after the effect
-the fuel wasn't hot enough to melt the supports
-a few weeks earlier the wtc was evacuated so some "engineers" could access the building
-a few policemen were censored for inferring that there was a bomb
-the building fell exactly the same way as every professionally demolished multi-story building

someone said that they could disprove this, I invite you to please try

It has been debunked long ago. 

Quote from: Nightmare on September 15, 2008, 09:00:36 AM

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on September 12, 2008, 04:57:45 PM

If you feel that the 9/11 attacks were wrong, then why did you do them?

Osama didn't destroy the buildings! He was employed by the CIA (for a second time) to hijack the planes! The US did the dirty work by planting demo charges!

the evidence:

-the wtc was built to withstand the impact of large passenger planes
-70 years earlier, a large military transport plane crashed into the empire state building...and nothing happened to the building
-there are secondary and tertiary explosions after the effect
-the fuel wasn't hot enough to melt the supports
-a few weeks earlier the wtc was evacuated so some "engineers" could access the building
-a few policemen were censored for inferring that there was a bomb
-the building fell exactly the same way as every professionally demolished multi-story building

someone said that they could disprove this, I invite you to please try

It has been debunked long ago. 

Really? Enlighten us all.

I would like to find a cohesive video disproving the conspiracy. I'm not trying to make any implications, but there aren't many. I haven't found any, but I would enjoy watching the video.

Well the easiest one to debunk is the fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.  That is a true statement but steel doesn't have to melt to lose its strength.  I don't remember the real number but the steel in the WTC lost atleast 50 percent of its supporting strength.  

I would like to find a cohesive video disproving the conspiracy. I'm not trying to make any implications, but there aren't many. I haven't found any, but I would enjoy watching the video.

They are out there.  Also popular mechanics busting it long ago. 

"most are more along the lines of left wing"

your saying that most of the people who support Bush think the WTC is a US Conspiracy?

I tried searching with google and couldnt find any.

anyway nobody has yet explained why the existing support provided no resistance at all to the building. the building fell in 15 seconds, for an object in a vacuum to fall the same distance it would take 10 seconds. The 5 seconds can be accounted for by airresistance, airpressure, and solid resistance, however it cannot be accounted for by strong building archetectural foundations)

anyway nobody has yet explained why the existing support provided no resistance at all to the building.

READ MY POST AGAIN.

Well the easiest one to debunk is the fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.  That is a true statement but steel doesn't have to melt to lose its strength.  I don't remember the real number but the steel in the WTC lost atleast 50 percent of its supporting strength.  

Your opinion is not enlightenment, sources?

Quote from: Nightmare on September 15, 2008, 12:43:14 PM

anyway nobody has yet explained why the existing support provided no resistance at all to the building.

READ MY POST AGAIN.

So PM has a video of it? I think videos are more educational.

"most are more along the lines of left wing"

your saying that most of the people who support Bush think the WTC is a US Conspiracy?

I tried searching with google and couldnt find any.

anyway nobody has yet explained why the existing support provided no resistance at all to the building. the building fell in 15 seconds, for an object in a vacuum to fall the same distance it would take 10 seconds. The 5 seconds can be accounted for by airresistance, airpressure, and solid resistance, however it cannot be accounted for by strong building archetectural foundations)

Bush is right wing..... Are you slow?

I can't believe people still believe 9/11 was caused by the US govt.