6 ms·
> Who does the American public currently believe to be the shooter? What does this have to do with anything? Reality isn't a democracy. It's absolutely possib
by lstyls 9y ago
> Who does the American public currently believe to be the shooter?
What does this have to do with anything? Reality isn't a democracy.
It's absolutely possible the shot came from Oswald. Tastelessness aside, try playing JFK Reloaded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded). Claiming the ballistics don't make sense is as debunked as claiming jet fuel can't melt steel beams.
- jakeogh 9y agoThey melted. There's no doubt about that. I should note that NIST disagrees with you if you mean they melted before the three buildings were destroyed... or after. http://archive.is/5dz5G http://archive.is/5dz5G more: http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/Pretext.mov http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/Prete...
- dragontamer 9y ago> claiming jet fuel can't melt steel beams Just note: Jet Fuel probably can't melt steel beams, because steel has a significantly higher melting point than the temperature of jet fuel. Of course, Steel Beams are about as strong as a wet-noodle at Jet-fuel temperatures: https://youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUA?t=1m55s https://youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUA?t=1m55s Which of course, would cause the towers to collapse. But seriously, Jet Fuel doesn't "melt" steel beams. It just weakens them tot he point where they break easily. You can't make ANY mistakes when talking to a conspiracy theorist. They are right about the melting point of steel, but that doesn't help their argument at all.
- tzakrajs 9y agoAlso there were documented hotspots that were in excess of steel melting temperature. This was due to regular office debris being burnt quickly, thanks to the jet fuel that had catalyzed it when it sprayed out into the center and floors above and below the crash site. I read about this in the excellent 9/11 debunk series by Popular Mechanics.
- jakeogh 9y agoPM is correct about the hotspots existing. Here are the AVIRIS files: http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/AVIRIS_Flightlines http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/AVIRIS_Flightlines We tried the (UL approved) office debris theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw (yt may axe that chan)
- dragontamer 9y agoConspiracy theorists will come up with anything to prove themselves correct. For example: > Also there were documented hotspots that were in excess of steel melting temperature. This will be evidence for the Thermite that the "Big Bad Government" planted in the towers to make it an inside job. -------- When talking to a conspiracy theorist, do NOT challenge them to a facts battle. You take their facts that they tell you, and you debunk what they're saying individually. The vast majority of 9/11 Truthers believe in "Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams", so you must FOCUS on this argument. A conspiracy theorist will always, always, ALWAYS "out fact" you. Because their community is making up bull----, they have way more "facts" than you ever will have. You can't win by "breadth" of argument, you can only win with "depth" of argument. NEVER broaden an argument against a conspiracy theorist. That's how they win.
- tzakrajs 9y agoI get it now, I will practice that more. But won't you be breadthening the argument by saying the steel was weakened and not melted and then they will ask about how beads of steel were reportedly seen or recorded?
- onion2k 9y agoReality isn't a democracy. Most people are actually quite intelligent and generally rational. If a large number of people finding something unconvincing is very often an indication that it warrants further investigation. Sometimes it turns out that all those people are wrong, but also, sometimes it doesn't.
- jmcqk6 9y agoLook at the percentage of americans that reject the theory of evolution or climate change, and then give me this argument again.