|
|
Post by discoberry on Sept 15, 2011 16:26:23 GMT -5
My favourite part is when they bring up the incident where a plane crashed into the Empire State building. Never mind that these are different buildings with different designs, or that the planes on 9/11 were much larger, modern, commercial jets carrying significantly more fuel, or that the 9/11 hijackers were intentionally trying to bring the buildings down after years of planning, whereas the ESB incident was an accident, or, y'know, a zillion other factors that make the two scenarios completely different. But other than that, they're totally the same thing, right? The guy who hit the ESB probably was hitting the breaks not slamming on the gas |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Sept 15, 2011 16:58:47 GMT -5
To get back to an earlier point, do any of the Truthers actually have a reason why it was done in the first place, or why they attacked the twin Towers? Surely there would have been other targets that would have caused greater casualties?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 15, 2011 17:20:52 GMT -5
To get back to an earlier point, do any of the Truthers actually have a reason why it was done in the first place, or why they attacked the twin Towers? Surely there would have been other targets that would have caused greater casualties? To be evil and nefarious, I guess? Seriously, though, the usual reasons given are either "invade the middle east for oil", "insurance fraud" (for WTC 7), "creating a police state", or some mix of the above. All idiot reasons, of course. WTC 7 kills me because there is ZERO good reason for why it would have been intentionally brought down. If it was for insurance fraud... what, did the owners happen to overhear the government's evil plan, and decided to cash in? Or was the government going around telling everyone about what they were going to do? And if it was all part of the government's plan, why even bother destroying it in the first place? "Oh, while we're destroying the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, we should destroy this dinky building that hardly anyone even knows exists." |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 15, 2011 18:24:24 GMT -5
Not to mention, why even have a secondary collapse? Why not either toss a third plane into the mix or not bother?
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Sept 15, 2011 21:44:01 GMT -5
I just blame hulk hogan
|
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Sept 16, 2011 14:31:58 GMT -5
If the attack (demolition) was so well planned, why didn't they just make the buildings come down more 'realistically'? If they were worried about damaging the surrounding area, they could have just dumped the twin towers onto WTC7.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 16, 2011 15:28:12 GMT -5
Or into each other. LIKE REVERSE DOMINOES!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 16, 2011 20:15:28 GMT -5
Or planted a nuclear device, blown up all of New York, and said terrorists did it.
|
|
|
|
Post by discoberry on Sept 16, 2011 21:40:06 GMT -5
Or planted a nuclear device, blown up all of New York, and said terrorists did it.  |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Sept 16, 2011 22:28:38 GMT -5
My favourite part is when they bring up the incident where a plane crashed into the Empire State building. Never mind that these are different buildings with different designs, or that the planes on 9/11 were much larger, modern, commercial jets carrying significantly more fuel, or that the 9/11 hijackers were intentionally trying to bring the buildings down after years of planning, whereas the ESB incident was an accident, or, y'know, a zillion other factors that make the two scenarios completely different. But other than that, they're totally the same thing, right? The guy who hit the ESB probably was hitting the breaks not slamming on the gas It was a B-25 pre WWII in fog. Much slower, much smaller, much less fuel, much different construction (grid in ESB instead of central supports in the WTC) |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 16, 2011 22:33:09 GMT -5
Not to mention that Al Qaeda likely had a rough idea of which was the best point to hit the towers if they wanted to bring them down.
Like I said, a zillion factors.
WTC had the whole "tube within a tube" concept. Not a bad design, either. Like I said earlier, the fact that they withstood the impact of a large jet (note the aforementioned difference between "impact" and "cumulative damage") despite being ridiculously tall buildings, says good things about modern engineering, and the flexibility of the sky scrapers.
Plus, we're talking about buildings that came down under very extreme circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 16, 2011 22:56:44 GMT -5
Or planted a nuclear device, blown up all of New York, and said terrorists did it. Or some kind of enormous evil squid from space. |
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Sept 16, 2011 23:03:02 GMT -5
Giant space squids! I knew it was them! Even when it was the turrists I knew it was them!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 16, 2011 23:58:18 GMT -5
Not to mention that Al Qaeda likely had a rough idea of which was the best point to hit the towers if they wanted to bring them down. Probably because Americans freaking mocked the previous attempt (which was a truck being driven into the base of it) and talked about where they should have struck if they wanted to succeed. On television. Or so I've heard. A long time ago. I could be wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 17, 2011 0:04:58 GMT -5
Probably because Americans freaking mocked the previous attempt (which was a truck being driven into the base of it) and talked about where they should have struck if they wanted to succeed. On television. Or so I've heard. A long time ago. I could be wrong. People are still doing that. As in, ways they could have increased the death toll. Or places they could strike that would have larger death tolls. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if Al Qaeda had access to people with knowledge of engineering, who could have figured it out on their own. Evil doesn't mean stupid. |
|
