9/11 Truthers still not done


#1

[Read the post]


#2

I don’t think we’ll ever be rid of them entirely, but hopefully they’ll at least get down to “the moon landing was a hoax!” levels soon.


#3

None of the cranks ever really go away; their scene just dwindles into a shell of its former self.

Case in point: we still have flat earthers!


#4

Except now the flat earthers are making a lot of noise!


#5

The most often repeated ‘evidence’ is that jet fuel doesn’t get hot enough to melt steel.
Of course they miss the simple fact that tall a tower provides plenty of O2 to the fire. Coal only burns at around 1000°F but add a little air and it’s easy to reach the the 2750°F needed to melt steel.


#6

Also that the steel wouldn’t even need to melt, just weaken enough for the weight of the upper floors to do the rest.


#7

Ugh! You sheeple need to just watch this video! You’ll see!

The only thing as bad as truthers are the “Never Forget!” people who tell me I’m not being patriotic enough on the 11th.


#8

Fuck ‘em. My little brother was driving past the Pentagon when the plane hit. It was a plane. He even called me and told me so later on. A frickin’ jet is hard to mistake as a missile.


#9

I am always surprised that it is not nuts on the left that are the 9-11 truthers, Bush-Cheney seem like exactly the Operation Nothwoods authorizing types.


#10

Who would decide to stop asking questions when there are ample reasons (inconsistencies, glaring omissions, very questionable and/or anomalous facts) that justify, if anything, continuing to ask questions?

I would have guessed that the predominantly intellectually minded commenters (and authors) here at BB would hold the truth regarding 9/11 in higher regard, especially given the impact that day continues to have on us. I must say I’m disappointed.


#11

quite right but of course they did find melted steel in the rubble. They also found “evidence” of thermite… but then again, you would kind of expect that when you burn a massive amount of steel and aluminum together.


#12

I’m not asking for these people to understand phase diagrams or annealing processes, but anyone can see this by trying at home how much weaker steel can get when heated with a torch.

If they then consider how the building load bearing structure was already damaged by the impact, it should be obvious how a jet fuel fire can critically weaken a damaged structure enough to bring it down.

Here I am getting carried away when no amount of evidence is going to change many of these folks minds…


#13

Why? General Ripper came first.


#14

And emotional reasoning like that is exactly why the truthers need to get you to see the light. I mean, your brother? You’re going to believe him over some rando on the internet that watched a video, man?


#15

Next time someone tells you “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams”, just tell them “of course it can, look at the twin towers” and stand back and enjoy.

Also, you missed a > at the end of the first paragraph Rob. It’s turned the entire post into one giant link.


#16

Who would? Of course, there are not ample reasons to do so, so we don’t.

Be disappointed all you want, we’re already disappointed in the cognitive abilities of truthers.


#17

In the history of modern construction (~20th century) never once has a building collapsed from fire. But on 9/11, not only did this happen, it happened to three buildings, one of which had no contact with jet fuel.


#18

Do you expect people to not laugh in your face?


#19

That is what the US NFPA taught until 2001, guess they never considered a 767 loaded with fuel for that calculation.
I am curious what did the findings come out for on the smaller building which collapsed?
(edit)ohdamnit, hope I didn’t just feed a 28min old troll…


#20

What’s frustrating is that the hunt for mysterious forces behind the attack siphons off much of the public outrage about the way the government has openly transformed civil rights during the “emergency” that began on that day, and has been extended every year by Bush and now Obama.