Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls
I'm not convinced but I don't think it's really that far of a leap. It's not like we have a clean record, and there is some fishy physical evidence, such as the beam cuts and the rate of collapse. I never really looked much into besides watching Zeitgeist, and a couple other docs.
|
Beam cuts: there were thirteen stories left standing after the collapse. Videotaped and ****, the government can't be lying to us about that for sure unless you want to bring in a cool CGI theory (not you personally DWV, but I'm hoping the Beatles documentarian guy will get in on this), it's pretty solid evidence that that was a thing. Did they just pluck them out of the ground? It's a lot more likely that they would cut them down to smaller pieces to send out more easily with the rest of the rubble. It would be so likely that they have videos of volunteers cutting those beams in the cleanup process.
Rate of collapse: You mean the rate of collapse that is conflicting with all of the videos that are put forward? The news shows closer to 12 seconds than the ones purporting conspiracy saying that it's eight seconds or whatever freefall motion or "near free fall motion" is made out to be. It's kind of funny, with the "near free fall motion" being suggested that there was no resistance at all from the ground floors below. As if the bombs were uber precise but not quite precise enough to keep the floors from offering just a little bit of give because hey, the building still fell down. There's kind of a weird reason that the buildings collapsing look like a demolition. Here, I'll write it out for you:
Demolition end result: building collapses
9/11 end result of twin towers: buildings collapse
Interesting.
Zeitgeist and other films: There's quite an industry built around the 9/11 conspiracy, and I blame them for spreading misinformation to further their interests as a main cause for the popularity of the conspiracy. It's similar to global warming in that fashion.
Which do you think is more likely?
Scenario A: that a majority of scientists in relevant fields agree on some subject and a few people paid off by special interests go to great lengths to deny it or disprove it.
Scenario B: the majority of scientists (we're talking hundreds of thousands) are paid to believe said scenario and a few skeptics really show things how they are using their real brain-smarts.
I find the sides pretty easy to pick in the whole 9/11 scenario.
EDIT: I love when Truthers shout cognitive dissonance! It's like a retarded kid shouting down syndrome all the time whenever his parents tell him to do some chores.