Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 245

Thread: Ben's Conspiracy Theories

  1. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IP View Post
    Why'd they destroy his body?
    Because it was 1901?

  2. #177
    Tenacious D's Avatar
    The law is of supreme importance, or no importance.
    Tenacious D Excellent & Trustworthy Tenacious D Excellent & Trustworthy Tenacious D Excellent & Trustworthy Tenacious D Excellent & Trustworthy Tenacious D Excellent & Trustworthy

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    17,428
    See Ignore List

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IP View Post
    Why'd they destroy his body?
    Was just wondering this - and why so irrevocably, in acid?

  3. #178
    Tenacious D's Avatar
    The law is of supreme importance, or no importance.
    Tenacious D Excellent & Trustworthy Tenacious D Excellent & Trustworthy Tenacious D Excellent & Trustworthy Tenacious D Excellent & Trustworthy Tenacious D Excellent & Trustworthy

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    17,428
    See Ignore List

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justingroves View Post
    Because it was 1901?
    Thanks to his multi-city funeral procession via train, Lincoln's body was so repeatedly pumped with formaldehyde as to be nearly perfectly preseved years later, when moved into his final tomb. And that was some 36 years before McKinley's assassin.

  4. #179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IP View Post
    Why'd they destroy his body?
    It was stated they wanted to avoid "relic hunters", but I think they just so despised him (McKinley was fairly popular) that they wanted all traces of him gone.

    However, he has proven to be quite a key figure in the transformation of the US. Without him murdering McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt likely never becomes president and the Progressive Era probably turns out a little differently. Of course, that gets into the "Big Man" Theory of history my fellow teacher friend and I argue over regularly.

  5. #180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justingroves View Post
    I would hate to know I'm too stupid to realize metal bends when it gets hot.
    Plenty of instances where skyscrapers burned more viciously and for a much longer time and didn't collapse.
    "Drop the leash"

  6. #181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GahLee View Post
    Plenty of instances where skyscrapers burned more viciously and for a much longer time and didn't collapse.
    Okay

  7. #182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GahLee View Post
    Plenty of instances where skyscrapers burned more viciously and for a much longer time and didn't collapse.
    Probably not that many instances where a 757 hit the building at 500mph first.

  8. #183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IP View Post
    The point is that jet fuel ignited a fire. And we can all see that the towers were very much on fire. That heat could compromise the support structures.
    So why does it matter what temperature at which jet fuel burns?

  9. #184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justingroves View Post
    That's not directed at you IP, just 9/11 "truthers'
    Which is the whole point of a strawman. Good job.

  10. #185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kptvol View Post
    Probably not that many instances where a 757 hit the building at 500mph first.
    How fast?

  11. #186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ben4vols View Post
    How fast?
    Plenty fast.

  12. #187
    Tenacious D's Avatar
    The law is of supreme importance, or no importance.
    Tenacious D Excellent & Trustworthy Tenacious D Excellent & Trustworthy Tenacious D Excellent & Trustworthy Tenacious D Excellent & Trustworthy Tenacious D Excellent & Trustworthy

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    17,428
    See Ignore List

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ben4vols View Post
    How fast?
    Ben -
    This is your thread, and you can certainly air your opinions in whatever form you wish, but one of the most frustrating disconnects when discussing anything - but particularly conspiracies - are these sort of snippet arguments, and which are high on innuendo and low on tangible substance.

    If you think that there was a 9/11 conspiracy, then tell us what you know, think, believe, wonder, imagine, can/not prove, or whatever else you believe deserves consideration and re-examination. Then, cite whatever sources, examples, facts, rumors, allegations that feed into or in any way support or further enlighten the matter. Once done, trust that it will receive a fair hearing and we'll see if it survives scrutiny. As you've seen here, there are several of us who are quite skeptical of any 9/11 conspiracies, but there isn't a single one of us who wouldn't be willing to admit an error, or acknowledge where either doubt or the unknown may exist.

    But you've got to just say what you think, and lay it all out there, or you're never going to get any further than spawning 1,000 independent conversations on individual and disconnected bits of it, and will never have the benefit of the sort of cohesive discussion that the matter requires - and the only thing which can prove your beliefs correct.

    Absent this, it gives the air that you either don't know enough as to have any opinion on the matter, or worse, that you fear that it won't survive scrutiny, and hence, you believe the matter requires this semantical shell-game simply to prevent its exposure as being fraudulent. Neither of these lend credence to your position, and right from the jump.

  13. #188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GahLee View Post
    Plenty of instances where skyscrapers burned more viciously and for a much longer time and didn't collapse.
    Plenty of instances where people have been shot by a .45 and lived, therefore anyone that dies as a result of being shot by a .45 deserves scrutiny.

    It's like you expect all things be exactly equal: there has never been an instance outside this one, where that building burned in this manner.

    Everything else is just models. Ben, explain modeling, and why it's wrong for so much, but damned right here.
    Do unto others before they do unto you

  14. #189
    IP's Avatar
    Lyle's lynch mob community organizer
    IP Excellent & Trustworthy IP Excellent & Trustworthy IP Excellent & Trustworthy IP Excellent & Trustworthy IP Excellent & Trustworthy IP Excellent & Trustworthy

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    47,428
    See Ignore List

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ben4vols View Post
    So why does it matter what temperature at which jet fuel burns?
    We just went full circle. The original conspiracy was that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, therefore demo charges were used to take down the building. My entire argument has been refuting the notion that steel must melt to cause a structural failure from fire. Full. Circle.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tmac61 View Post
    I tried. I will continue to embarrass you in front of your friends.

  15. #190
    IP's Avatar
    Lyle's lynch mob community organizer
    IP Excellent & Trustworthy IP Excellent & Trustworthy IP Excellent & Trustworthy IP Excellent & Trustworthy IP Excellent & Trustworthy IP Excellent & Trustworthy

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    47,428
    See Ignore List

    Default

    Many of us acknowledge that the Pennsylvania plane may have been shot down. Or at least, it is plausible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tmac61 View Post
    I tried. I will continue to embarrass you in front of your friends.

  16. #191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IP View Post
    Many of us acknowledge that the Pennsylvania plane may have been shot down. Or at least, it is plausible.
    I would be more surprised if it wasn't. And I'm not sure there was another option.
    Cursed Ebola stricken zombies - this is Tennessee football.

  17. #192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IP View Post
    We just went full circle. The original conspiracy was that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, therefore demo charges were used to take down the building. My entire argument has been refuting the notion that steel must melt to cause a structural failure from fire. Full. Circle.
    You have a large, heavy object with a lot of velocity slamming into a building. I don't understand how the impact shifting the structure, plus the added weight, plus the fire wouldn't legitimately bring the building down and how this is so hard to comprehend for some.
    Last edited by CardinalVol; 03-21-2017 at 11:47 AM.
    Cursed Ebola stricken zombies - this is Tennessee football.

  18. #193

    Default

    Still awaiting my answer to the I-35W bridge crash in Minneapolis being caused by the feds running underground experiements nearby.
    Last edited by CardinalVol; 03-21-2017 at 12:49 PM.
    Cursed Ebola stricken zombies - this is Tennessee football.

  19. #194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CardinalVol View Post
    I would be more surprised if it wasn't. And I'm not sure there was another option.
    Talking to some disaster response folks I know that participated in the aftermath, they thought the debris spread seemed way too broad for a the plane not to have broken up prior to impacting the ground. Granted, these people aren't trained to make those types of evaluations, but I thought it was interesting.

  20. #195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IP View Post
    We just went full circle. The original conspiracy was that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, therefore demo charges were used to take down the building. My entire argument has been refuting the notion that steel must melt to cause a structural failure from fire. Full. Circle.
    Yes full circle. Like I said, no real "truther" pushes the silly jet fuel question. It is a strawmam diversion.

  21. #196
    Tenacious D's Avatar
    The law is of supreme importance, or no importance.
    Tenacious D Excellent & Trustworthy Tenacious D Excellent & Trustworthy Tenacious D Excellent & Trustworthy Tenacious D Excellent & Trustworthy Tenacious D Excellent & Trustworthy

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    17,428
    See Ignore List

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ben4vols View Post
    Yes full circle. Like I said, no real "truther" pushes the silly jet fuel question. It is a strawmam diversion.
    Then out with what you believe, or just admit that you neither know enough to support any opinion nor possess the necessary details of it, even if you did.

  22. #197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CardinalVol View Post
    I would be more surprised if it wasn't. And I'm not sure there was another option.
    If it was a shoot down, it was the right call. Sacrificing those on board was "better" than whatever damage they'd have done on the ground.

    I was on active duty at the time so after the shit had clearly hit the fan we were quite busy so I missed out on the news cycle, but were skyscrapers evacuated nationwide? Were people just sent home?

    Kind of weird that I never considered what was going on outside of my little bubble.

  23. #198
    IP's Avatar
    Lyle's lynch mob community organizer
    IP Excellent & Trustworthy IP Excellent & Trustworthy IP Excellent & Trustworthy IP Excellent & Trustworthy IP Excellent & Trustworthy IP Excellent & Trustworthy

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    47,428
    See Ignore List

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Brant View Post
    If it was a shoot down, it was the right call. Sacrificing those on board was "better" than whatever damage they'd have done on the ground.

    I was on active duty at the time so after the shit had clearly hit the fan we were quite busy so I missed out on the news cycle, but were skyscrapers evacuated nationwide? Were people just sent home?

    Kind of weird that I never considered what was going on outside of my little bubble.
    Some schools and businesses closed, most didn't. Nobody was moving around much except to gather loved ones or go home. Some skyscrapers went ahead and limited activity, but just the biggest, iconic ones that would be a target. Weirdest thing was the lack of planes flying, and how bright the sky was for a few days.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tmac61 View Post
    I tried. I will continue to embarrass you in front of your friends.

  24. #199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacious D View Post
    Ben -
    This is your thread, and you can certainly air your opinions in whatever form you wish, but one of the most frustrating disconnects when discussing anything - but particularly conspiracies - are these sort of snippet arguments, and which are high on innuendo and low on tangible substance.

    If you think that there was a 9/11 conspiracy, then tell us what you know, think, believe, wonder, imagine, can/not prove, or whatever else you believe deserves consideration and re-examination. Then, cite whatever sources, examples, facts, rumors, allegations that feed into or in any way support or further enlighten the matter. Once done, trust that it will receive a fair hearing and we'll see if it survives scrutiny. As you've seen here, there are several of us who are quite skeptical of any 9/11 conspiracies, but there isn't a single one of us who wouldn't be willing to admit an error, or acknowledge where either doubt or the unknown may exist.

    But you've got to just say what you think, and lay it all out there, or you're never going to get any further than spawning 1,000 independent conversations on individual and disconnected bits of it, and will never have the benefit of the sort of cohesive discussion that the matter requires - and the only thing which can prove your beliefs correct.

    Absent this, it gives the air that you either don't know enough as to have any opinion on the matter, or worse, that you fear that it won't survive scrutiny, and hence, you believe the matter requires this semantical shell-game simply to prevent its exposure as being fraudulent. Neither of these lend credence to your position, and right from the jump.

    I'm not going to re-debate the issue. There was a thread a couple of years back where I went into detail.

  25. #200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacious D View Post
    Then out with what you believe, or just admit that you neither know enough to support any opinion nor possess the necessary details of it, even if you did.
    No one knows enough to support a valid fact based opinion so far as the building collapse is concerned. Too many unknowns. There was an office fire, there was structural damage due to airliner impact and there were 2 skyscrapers that collapsed due to that. There is no way to recreate that. This isn't JFK where you can somewhat easily recreate the shot. You do however have on the ground reports at time of collapse, video from multiple angles and post collapse evidence. Does the evidence support the collapse hypothesis? I don't think it does.

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •