On February 10 2011 18:45 Frigo wrote: The Holocaust is a hoax. In reality Hitler gathered the jews in camps to give them food and shelter and pink teddy bears, but the selfish jews killed themselves to make him look bad.
I wouldn't be surprised if some people seriously believed this, probably the same kind of people who think 9/11 was an inside job.
I just want you to know you have just insulted people who believe in physical evidence over a governments word. People like you are what allow cover-ups to happen. On this subject, i will say no more.
Well, I have immense distrust and distaste for the government but on this particular topic, after looking at the evidence presented by the conspiracy theorists I find it to be pretty laughable and circumstantial, I concede that it's possible but outside the realms that my brain considers remotely believable. I too don't really wanna go into it and derail / greatly narrow the thrad.
Its laughable that you could SEE explosions down the towers BEFORE where the building was collapsing at nearly free fall speed? Or that a report from NIST said that during the investigation into why the towers fell ZERO tests for explosive residue were conducted? (btw guess who over saw NIST at this time. Jeb Bush. you know good ole "W"s brother?)The list of inconsistencies is a long one indeed. Now, i dont claim to know what happened on that day, however, there are too many things that dont make sense about the official story for me to ignore them.
Thing is that there are some complicated physics that show under certain conditions you could reproduce what happened to the twin towers, without the need for explosives. It mainly rests on poor construction and the way in which the planes hit, its as good a theory as any other though.
Simple fact is that no one can conclusively prove to the oppositions satisfaction exactly what happened. There is so little physical evidence left, if it were an inside job you would never be able to prove it, they wouldn't have put it down on paper, they wouldn't be that stupid. I don't know if it was an inside job, I don't think it was, but i can't prove it wasn't. You can not prove that it was. Thats the core of a good conspiracy theory, and why this one interests me and the ones about the moon don't.
I can conclusively prove we went to the moon, anyone who thinks I can't are nutty as squirrel poo, however with the 9/11 thing its not so cut and dry, I'm nowhere near convinced but I am curious and atleast open to the possibility
apparently the Scandanavians got there first in the 12th-13th century, again the evidence is very sketchy, but they made it to greenland and there is some evidence that suggests they carried on across the pond.
hey that is crazy, I've heard that there were blonde and red-haired native-americans in newfoundland/north eastern america when the first settlers arrived, but never the other way around, nice post.
tbh we were all fooling ourselves if we really belived that the medieval explorers were the first to make it to these far flung places. The chinese probably made it to the west coast well before we made it to the east, I always suspected the vikings atleast attempted it and then i saw a documentary about it.
So much knowledge was lost after the fall of rome, literally thousands of years of lirerature and discovery were lost to the western world for hundreds of years. More and more we have found that the discoveries attributed to europeans were actually heavy influenced by or out right stolen from earlier Islaamic scholars, from the 9th to 12th centuries there was a big movement to find and translate all the world's knowledge into arabic and they used that store of knowledge to make huge leaps in astronomy, physics and medicine.
If you know where to look, find a BBC documentary mini-series called "Science and Islam" its fascinating.
YES!!! I have seen it, watched it not too long ago actually, Ironic that we re-learned ancient greek history/theory/mathematics from our neighbors in the middle east. Any history buff should watch this. Who knows where the world would be had the romans not fell so dramatically.
youtube:
edit: and I can definitely prove that Native Americans made it there before anyone else.
On February 10 2011 19:19 tdt wrote: The Inquisition was terrible. BS. Really small potatoes like just a few thousand compared to real genocides. Russians alone killed 60 million of their own. Khan wiped whole countries like Persia. etc.
You can't use numbers to compare an ancient genocide to a modern one.
On February 10 2011 13:54 Silidons wrote: If I say it, I'll probably get banned.
Fine, if you don't say it, I will...
THE HOLOCAUST!
Oh... only absolute morons deny such things. You can't hide the deaths of 11 million innocent people. =/
Despite the atrocities of the holocaust, Hitler was a brilliant leader. He can be credited with huge a economic boom during his time, as well as military success. My question is why is he painted as the posterboy for evil when Stalin and Mao both killed thousands more people under their rule? I am in no way trying to undermine the horrors of the holocaust, but I don't really understand why Stalin or Mao don't get the same negative attention that Hitler does. :/
Not quite sure. Hitler was one of those people that have so much impact on history...more so than Stalin or Mao could ever dream of. WW2 started pretty much on the agenda of one man...one man pretty much initiated WW2. That sort of influence is unheard of. Also people tend to be more sensitive when the genocide is...race related or the like. Stalin killed people to extend his own governmental power. If you weren't communist then you were as good as dead to Stalin. HItler killed Jewish people just because he could really.
Hitler was a brilliant POLITICAL leader. He knew propaganda and how to use it. His fault was that he simply wasn't a military genius. If he had kept out of running the military and instead just told them who to invade and left his generals to it the war probably would have turned out VERY VERY differently. Thankfully he was arrogant to a fault.
actually until the allies began to push the germans back, Hitler had been a very good military leader. Tyrant or not, he was the mastermind behind their german advance that swept though europe. The tide only turned when the US joined the fight and we had the man power to push him back, we won the war.... Hitler didn't lose it (if you catch my meaning). it was only when things got really bad that Hitler became more and more desperate and stopped thinking straight (well by his standards lol).
Dunno if anyone has said this cause I cbf'd reading through 11 pages.
Exodus. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it isn't recorded anywhere else apart from in the bible.
I'd also say parts of Roman History because if I remember correctly their history was recorded in a huge series of books (1000 large~) that were mostly destroyed by invading forces when one of their great libraries were burnt down. We only have 3-4 of these volumes so we are missing a large portion of (first hand) accounts from the Roman Age. Of course, Archaeologists have dug up a fair bit of information but nothing is better than information from someone who was actually there. This of course could all be a crock, I just remember reading about it or watching a documentary at one point.
apparently the Scandanavians got there first in the 12th-13th century, again the evidence is very sketchy, but they made it to greenland and there is some evidence that suggests they carried on across the pond.
hey that is crazy, I've heard that there were blonde and red-haired native-americans in newfoundland/north eastern america when the first settlers arrived, but never the other way around, nice post.
tbh we were all fooling ourselves if we really belived that the medieval explorers were the first to make it to these far flung places. The chinese probably made it to the west coast well before we made it to the east, I always suspected the vikings atleast attempted it and then i saw a documentary about it.
So much knowledge was lost after the fall of rome, literally thousands of years of lirerature and discovery were lost to the western world for hundreds of years. More and more we have found that the discoveries attributed to europeans were actually heavy influenced by or out right stolen from earlier Islaamic scholars, from the 9th to 12th centuries there was a big movement to find and translate all the world's knowledge into arabic and they used that store of knowledge to make huge leaps in astronomy, physics and medicine.
If you know where to look, find a BBC documentary mini-series called "Science and Islam" its fascinating.
YES!!! I have seen it, watched it not too long ago actually, Ironic that we re-learned ancient greek history/theory/mathematics from our neighbors in the middle east. Any history buff should watch this. Who knows where the world would be had the romans not fell so dramatically.
edit: and I can definitely prove that Native Americans made it there before anyone else.
There have been many "dark ages" throughout our history. Cycles of knowledge being gathered and then lost when the dominant empire falls, which they all do. Thankfully we seem to have moved beyond empire now and instead we share knowledge, on the flip side though we rely almost completely on computers to store our knowlege and in the future books and paper will be a thing of the past. If a virus infected the internet enough we could lose all of our accumulated knowledge in a nano-second...... if there were a solar flare that hit Earth and we didn't have everything powered down we could lose everything, including electricity grids and it would take years to replace them all.
History is full of examples of humans getting comfortable and then experiencing a sudden shift the in world that throws it into chaos.
On February 10 2011 13:54 Silidons wrote: If I say it, I'll probably get banned.
Fine, if you don't say it, I will...
THE HOLOCAUST!
Oh... only absolute morons deny such things. You can't hide the deaths of 11 million innocent people. =/
Despite the atrocities of the holocaust, Hitler was a brilliant leader. He can be credited with huge a economic boom during his time, as well as military success. My question is why is he painted as the posterboy for evil when Stalin and Mao both killed thousands more people under their rule? I am in no way trying to undermine the horrors of the holocaust, but I don't really understand why Stalin or Mao don't get the same negative attention that Hitler does. :/
Not quite sure. Hitler was one of those people that have so much impact on history...more so than Stalin or Mao could ever dream of. WW2 started pretty much on the agenda of one man...one man pretty much initiated WW2. That sort of influence is unheard of. Also people tend to be more sensitive when the genocide is...race related or the like. Stalin killed people to extend his own governmental power. If you weren't communist then you were as good as dead to Stalin. HItler killed Jewish people just because he could really.
Hitler was a brilliant POLITICAL leader. He knew propaganda and how to use it. His fault was that he simply wasn't a military genius. If he had kept out of running the military and instead just told them who to invade and left his generals to it the war probably would have turned out VERY VERY differently. Thankfully he was arrogant to a fault.
actually until the allies began to push the germans back, Hitler had been a very good military leader. Tyrant or not, he was the mastermind behind their german advance that swept though europe. The tide only turned when the US joined the fight and we had the man power to push him back, we won the war.... Hitler didn't lose it (if you catch my meaning). it was only when things got really bad that Hitler became more and more desperate and stopped thinking straight (well by his standards lol).
I'm not sure if I agree. Hitler pushed through some of his idiotic and "pride over practicality" moves despite other military generals' protest such as starting a war with Soviet Union. And the German success had more to due with the quality of the German field commanders like Rommel than Hitler's military skills.
On February 10 2011 18:45 Frigo wrote: The Holocaust is a hoax. In reality Hitler gathered the jews in camps to give them food and shelter and pink teddy bears, but the selfish jews killed themselves to make him look bad.
I wouldn't be surprised if some people seriously believed this, probably the same kind of people who think 9/11 was an inside job.
I just want you to know you have just insulted people who believe in physical evidence over a governments word. People like you are what allow cover-ups to happen. On this subject, i will say no more.
Well, I have immense distrust and distaste for the government but on this particular topic, after looking at the evidence presented by the conspiracy theorists I find it to be pretty laughable and circumstantial, I concede that it's possible but outside the realms that my brain considers remotely believable. I too don't really wanna go into it and derail / greatly narrow the thrad.
Its laughable that you could SEE explosions down the towers BEFORE where the building was collapsing at nearly free fall speed? Or that a report from NIST said that during the investigation into why the towers fell ZERO tests for explosive residue were conducted? (btw guess who over saw NIST at this time. Jeb Bush. you know good ole "W"s brother?)The list of inconsistencies is a long one indeed. Now, i dont claim to know what happened on that day, however, there are too many things that dont make sense about the official story for me to ignore them.
Thing is that there are some complicated physics that show under certain conditions you could reproduce what happened to the twin towers, without the need for explosives. It mainly rests on poor construction and the way in which the planes hit, its as good a theory as any other though.
Simple fact is that no one can conclusively prove to the oppositions satisfaction exactly what happened. There is so little physical evidence left, if it were an inside job you would never be able to prove it, they wouldn't have put it down on paper, they wouldn't be that stupid. I don't know if it was an inside job, I don't think it was, but i can't prove it wasn't. You can not prove that it was. Thats the core of a good conspiracy theory, and why this one interests me and the ones about the moon don't.
I can conclusively prove we went to the moon, anyone who thinks I can't are nutty as squirrel poo, however with the 9/11 thing its not so cut and dry, I'm nowhere near convinced but I am curious and atleast open to the possibility
You are correct about being able to reproduce what happened to the towers without explosives. But not without the presence of extreme heat, heat that jet fuel cannot achieve. I dont know what happened and im not trying to convince anyone of anything except it needs further investigation because there is so much about that day that nobody knows. If your interested i linked a documentary about the subject on page 9 of this thread i believe.
On February 10 2011 19:59 Hammo wrote: Dunno if anyone has said this cause I cbf'd reading through 11 pages.
Exodus. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it isn't recorded anywhere else apart from in the bible.
I'd also say parts of Roman History because if I remember correctly their history was recorded in a huge series of books (1000 large~) that were mostly destroyed by invading forces when one of their great libraries were burnt down. We only have 3-4 of these volumes so we are missing a large portion of (first hand) accounts from the Roman Age. Of course, Archaeologists have dug up a fair bit of information but nothing is better than information from someone who was actually there. This of course could all be a crock, I just remember reading about it or watching a documentary at one point.
I'm with you on Exodus, infact I am convinced it didn't happen, atleast not in the way the bible portrays it. There is no way the Egyptians wouldn't have written it down, there would be mention of it at the very least even if they never made a full account. Something might have happened on a smaller scale, but 2 million people don't just up and leave without someone writing about it. I am one of those people who will believe anything with credible evidence, there simply isn't any for the Exodus. I think its a wonderful parable, and an integral part of the identity of a entire race of people, but until there is evidence unearthed which independantly verifies the bible's account (which I simply don't see ever happening) all it is to me is a story.
On February 10 2011 13:54 Silidons wrote: If I say it, I'll probably get banned.
Fine, if you don't say it, I will...
THE HOLOCAUST!
Oh... only absolute morons deny such things. You can't hide the deaths of 11 million innocent people. =/
Despite the atrocities of the holocaust, Hitler was a brilliant leader. He can be credited with huge a economic boom during his time, as well as military success. My question is why is he painted as the posterboy for evil when Stalin and Mao both killed thousands more people under their rule? I am in no way trying to undermine the horrors of the holocaust, but I don't really understand why Stalin or Mao don't get the same negative attention that Hitler does. :/
Not quite sure. Hitler was one of those people that have so much impact on history...more so than Stalin or Mao could ever dream of. WW2 started pretty much on the agenda of one man...one man pretty much initiated WW2. That sort of influence is unheard of. Also people tend to be more sensitive when the genocide is...race related or the like. Stalin killed people to extend his own governmental power. If you weren't communist then you were as good as dead to Stalin. HItler killed Jewish people just because he could really.
Hitler was a brilliant POLITICAL leader. He knew propaganda and how to use it. His fault was that he simply wasn't a military genius. If he had kept out of running the military and instead just told them who to invade and left his generals to it the war probably would have turned out VERY VERY differently. Thankfully he was arrogant to a fault.
Nope, Germans never could win the war, maybe they could have achieved some kind of gains, but once they started the war with Soviet Union and US there was no way it could end differently than with unconditional surrender. Even without US they could have only prolonged the war.
apparently the Scandanavians got there first in the 12th-13th century, again the evidence is very sketchy, but they made it to greenland and there is some evidence that suggests they carried on across the pond.
On February 10 2011 19:49 emythrel wrote: I can conclusively prove we went to the moon, anyone who thinks I can't are nutty as squirrel poo, however with the 9/11 thing its not so cut and dry, I'm nowhere near convinced but I am curious and atleast open to the possibility
Wait didn't Mythbusters prove that Moon landing was fake :O? I watched that show alot and they asked Nasa why they did not take photos of Moon to see the flag and they said we have already explored moon and we want to explore Mars. And they asked many more questions why this and that the guy just simply ignored their questions.
I also like the 9/11 conspiracy things they show you there is pretty freaky.
Many War has happend in the past especially with Britain taking over shit loads of colonies.
Ireland Vs Britain still today England cannot come into EU due to how the Britains killed ireland and the whole war and they stopped all imports to Ireland so they starved to death, I dont think everyone remembers but an American wrote an essay that they should eat their babies when they turn 1year old. I read about it in school it was pretty intresting he wasn't mocking the irish he just simply told the public irish are being treated as animals etc ( just read this 2weeks ago at my English C class) So they had to do a cruel thing to survive.
Lots of Muslims have made tools and were smart in Math the equations and all that stuff.
Suprised no one has said this yet Charles Darwin Survival of the Fittest and his whole monkey/human. *edit lots of typos*
On February 10 2011 18:45 Frigo wrote: The Holocaust is a hoax. In reality Hitler gathered the jews in camps to give them food and shelter and pink teddy bears, but the selfish jews killed themselves to make him look bad.
I wouldn't be surprised if some people seriously believed this, probably the same kind of people who think 9/11 was an inside job.
I just want you to know you have just insulted people who believe in physical evidence over a governments word. People like you are what allow cover-ups to happen. On this subject, i will say no more.
Well, I have immense distrust and distaste for the government but on this particular topic, after looking at the evidence presented by the conspiracy theorists I find it to be pretty laughable and circumstantial, I concede that it's possible but outside the realms that my brain considers remotely believable. I too don't really wanna go into it and derail / greatly narrow the thrad.
Its laughable that you could SEE explosions down the towers BEFORE where the building was collapsing at nearly free fall speed? Or that a report from NIST said that during the investigation into why the towers fell ZERO tests for explosive residue were conducted? (btw guess who over saw NIST at this time. Jeb Bush. you know good ole "W"s brother?)The list of inconsistencies is a long one indeed. Now, i dont claim to know what happened on that day, however, there are too many things that dont make sense about the official story for me to ignore them.
Edit: i forgot to mention that were the official story true the Twin Towers and building 7 would be the 1st 3 skyscrapers in history to collapse due to "fire". Others have burned for many more hours and are still standing today. It angers me to see people refute things that are right in front of them if they look.
Standard fires do not produce this kind of temperatures, not that that is the only problem with your argument.
On February 10 2011 18:45 Frigo wrote: The Holocaust is a hoax. In reality Hitler gathered the jews in camps to give them food and shelter and pink teddy bears, but the selfish jews killed themselves to make him look bad.
I wouldn't be surprised if some people seriously believed this, probably the same kind of people who think 9/11 was an inside job.
I just want you to know you have just insulted people who believe in physical evidence over a governments word. People like you are what allow cover-ups to happen. On this subject, i will say no more.
Well, I have immense distrust and distaste for the government but on this particular topic, after looking at the evidence presented by the conspiracy theorists I find it to be pretty laughable and circumstantial, I concede that it's possible but outside the realms that my brain considers remotely believable. I too don't really wanna go into it and derail / greatly narrow the thrad.
Its laughable that you could SEE explosions down the towers BEFORE where the building was collapsing at nearly free fall speed? Or that a report from NIST said that during the investigation into why the towers fell ZERO tests for explosive residue were conducted? (btw guess who over saw NIST at this time. Jeb Bush. you know good ole "W"s brother?)The list of inconsistencies is a long one indeed. Now, i dont claim to know what happened on that day, however, there are too many things that dont make sense about the official story for me to ignore them.
Thing is that there are some complicated physics that show under certain conditions you could reproduce what happened to the twin towers, without the need for explosives. It mainly rests on poor construction and the way in which the planes hit, its as good a theory as any other though.
Simple fact is that no one can conclusively prove to the oppositions satisfaction exactly what happened. There is so little physical evidence left, if it were an inside job you would never be able to prove it, they wouldn't have put it down on paper, they wouldn't be that stupid. I don't know if it was an inside job, I don't think it was, but i can't prove it wasn't. You can not prove that it was. Thats the core of a good conspiracy theory, and why this one interests me and the ones about the moon don't.
I can conclusively prove we went to the moon, anyone who thinks I can't are nutty as squirrel poo, however with the 9/11 thing its not so cut and dry, I'm nowhere near convinced but I am curious and atleast open to the possibility
You are correct about being able to reproduce what happened to the towers without explosives. But not without the presence of extreme heat, heat that jet fuel cannot achieve. I dont know what happened and im not trying to convince anyone of anything except it needs further investigation because there is so much about that day that nobody knows. If your interested i linked a documentary about the subject on page 9 of this thread i believe.
On February 10 2011 19:49 emythrel wrote: I can conclusively prove we went to the moon, anyone who thinks I can't are nutty as squirrel poo, however with the 9/11 thing its not so cut and dry, I'm nowhere near convinced but I am curious and atleast open to the possibility
Wait didn't Mythbusters prove that Moon landing was fake :O? I watched that show alot and they asked Nasa why they did not take photos of Moon to see the flag and they said we have already explored moon and we want to explore Mars. And they asked many more questions why this and that the guy just simply ignored their questions.
I also like the 9/11 conspiracy things they show you there is pretty freaky.
Many War has happend in the past especially with Britain taking over shit loads of colonies.
Ireland Vs Britain still today England cannot come into EU due to how the Britains killed ireland and the whole war and they stopped all imports to Ireland so they starved to death, I dont think everyone remembers but an American wrote an essay that they should eat their babies when they turn 1year old. I read about it in school it was pretty intresting he wasn't mocking the irish he just simply told the public irish are being treated as animals etc ( just read this 2weeks ago at my English C class) So they had to do a cruel thing to survive.
Lots of Muslims have made tools and were smart in Math the equations and all that stuff.
Suprised no one has said this yet Charles Darwin Survival of the Fittest and his whole monkey/human. *edit lots of typos*
no mythbusters proved they did go to the moon, I posted the link on page 7. The rest of your post I can not understand. Indeed Muslims have made tools and were smart in Math and stuff. Are you saying england is not a part of the European union?
On February 10 2011 13:54 Silidons wrote: If I say it, I'll probably get banned.
Fine, if you don't say it, I will...
THE HOLOCAUST!
Oh... only absolute morons deny such things. You can't hide the deaths of 11 million innocent people. =/
Despite the atrocities of the holocaust, Hitler was a brilliant leader. He can be credited with huge a economic boom during his time, as well as military success. My question is why is he painted as the posterboy for evil when Stalin and Mao both killed thousands more people under their rule? I am in no way trying to undermine the horrors of the holocaust, but I don't really understand why Stalin or Mao don't get the same negative attention that Hitler does. :/
Not quite sure. Hitler was one of those people that have so much impact on history...more so than Stalin or Mao could ever dream of. WW2 started pretty much on the agenda of one man...one man pretty much initiated WW2. That sort of influence is unheard of. Also people tend to be more sensitive when the genocide is...race related or the like. Stalin killed people to extend his own governmental power. If you weren't communist then you were as good as dead to Stalin. HItler killed Jewish people just because he could really.
Hitler was a brilliant POLITICAL leader. He knew propaganda and how to use it. His fault was that he simply wasn't a military genius. If he had kept out of running the military and instead just told them who to invade and left his generals to it the war probably would have turned out VERY VERY differently. Thankfully he was arrogant to a fault.
actually until the allies began to push the germans back, Hitler had been a very good military leader. Tyrant or not, he was the mastermind behind their german advance that swept though europe. The tide only turned when the US joined the fight and we had the man power to push him back, we won the war.... Hitler didn't lose it (if you catch my meaning). it was only when things got really bad that Hitler became more and more desperate and stopped thinking straight (well by his standards lol).
That is totally false. He had some good insights, but more bad ones from the start. Most of the military plans were done by german army command and they are the ones that made it possible for Germany to go as far as it did. I don't think US was necessary to win the war just veeeeery helpful.
On February 10 2011 18:45 Frigo wrote: The Holocaust is a hoax. In reality Hitler gathered the jews in camps to give them food and shelter and pink teddy bears, but the selfish jews killed themselves to make him look bad.
I wouldn't be surprised if some people seriously believed this, probably the same kind of people who think 9/11 was an inside job.
I just want you to know you have just insulted people who believe in physical evidence over a governments word. People like you are what allow cover-ups to happen. On this subject, i will say no more.
Well, I have immense distrust and distaste for the government but on this particular topic, after looking at the evidence presented by the conspiracy theorists I find it to be pretty laughable and circumstantial, I concede that it's possible but outside the realms that my brain considers remotely believable. I too don't really wanna go into it and derail / greatly narrow the thrad.
Its laughable that you could SEE explosions down the towers BEFORE where the building was collapsing at nearly free fall speed? Or that a report from NIST said that during the investigation into why the towers fell ZERO tests for explosive residue were conducted? (btw guess who over saw NIST at this time. Jeb Bush. you know good ole "W"s brother?)The list of inconsistencies is a long one indeed. Now, i dont claim to know what happened on that day, however, there are too many things that dont make sense about the official story for me to ignore them.
Thing is that there are some complicated physics that show under certain conditions you could reproduce what happened to the twin towers, without the need for explosives. It mainly rests on poor construction and the way in which the planes hit, its as good a theory as any other though.
Simple fact is that no one can conclusively prove to the oppositions satisfaction exactly what happened. There is so little physical evidence left, if it were an inside job you would never be able to prove it, they wouldn't have put it down on paper, they wouldn't be that stupid. I don't know if it was an inside job, I don't think it was, but i can't prove it wasn't. You can not prove that it was. Thats the core of a good conspiracy theory, and why this one interests me and the ones about the moon don't.
I can conclusively prove we went to the moon, anyone who thinks I can't are nutty as squirrel poo, however with the 9/11 thing its not so cut and dry, I'm nowhere near convinced but I am curious and atleast open to the possibility
You are correct about being able to reproduce what happened to the towers without explosives. But not without the presence of extreme heat, heat that jet fuel cannot achieve. I dont know what happened and im not trying to convince anyone of anything except it needs further investigation because there is so much about that day that nobody knows. If your interested i linked a documentary about the subject on page 9 of this thread i believe.
It just seems to me that heated steel would collapse under it's own weight due to it's material properties changing from being heated up.
Yes, but in order for that the happen there would need to be a source of heat hot enough to soften the steel. The steel that was used in the construction of the twin towers was tempered to withstand very, very high heat and large powerful collisions, such as a plane impact. Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to effect this steel like that. And as i said before, were this the case the towers and world trade center 7 would be the 1st and only 3 skyscrapers in history to implode due to fire.
On February 10 2011 18:45 Frigo wrote: The Holocaust is a hoax. In reality Hitler gathered the jews in camps to give them food and shelter and pink teddy bears, but the selfish jews killed themselves to make him look bad.
I wouldn't be surprised if some people seriously believed this, probably the same kind of people who think 9/11 was an inside job.
I just want you to know you have just insulted people who believe in physical evidence over a governments word. People like you are what allow cover-ups to happen. On this subject, i will say no more.
Well, I have immense distrust and distaste for the government but on this particular topic, after looking at the evidence presented by the conspiracy theorists I find it to be pretty laughable and circumstantial, I concede that it's possible but outside the realms that my brain considers remotely believable. I too don't really wanna go into it and derail / greatly narrow the thrad.
Its laughable that you could SEE explosions down the towers BEFORE where the building was collapsing at nearly free fall speed? Or that a report from NIST said that during the investigation into why the towers fell ZERO tests for explosive residue were conducted? (btw guess who over saw NIST at this time. Jeb Bush. you know good ole "W"s brother?)The list of inconsistencies is a long one indeed. Now, i dont claim to know what happened on that day, however, there are too many things that dont make sense about the official story for me to ignore them.
Edit: i forgot to mention that were the official story true the Twin Towers and building 7 would be the 1st 3 skyscrapers in history to collapse due to "fire". Others have burned for many more hours and are still standing today. It angers me to see people refute things that are right in front of them if they look.
Standard fires do not produce this kind of temperatures, not that that is the only problem with your argument.
You must have misunderstood, the fact that standard fires couldn't produce that kind of heat is my point. i was saying that it isn't possible for it to have happened the way we were told
On February 10 2011 13:54 Silidons wrote: If I say it, I'll probably get banned.
Fine, if you don't say it, I will...
THE HOLOCAUST!
Oh... only absolute morons deny such things. You can't hide the deaths of 11 million innocent people. =/
Despite the atrocities of the holocaust, Hitler was a brilliant leader. He can be credited with huge a economic boom during his time, as well as military success. My question is why is he painted as the posterboy for evil when Stalin and Mao both killed thousands more people under their rule? I am in no way trying to undermine the horrors of the holocaust, but I don't really understand why Stalin or Mao don't get the same negative attention that Hitler does. :/
Not quite sure. Hitler was one of those people that have so much impact on history...more so than Stalin or Mao could ever dream of. WW2 started pretty much on the agenda of one man...one man pretty much initiated WW2. That sort of influence is unheard of. Also people tend to be more sensitive when the genocide is...race related or the like. Stalin killed people to extend his own governmental power. If you weren't communist then you were as good as dead to Stalin. HItler killed Jewish people just because he could really.
Hitler was a brilliant POLITICAL leader. He knew propaganda and how to use it. His fault was that he simply wasn't a military genius. If he had kept out of running the military and instead just told them who to invade and left his generals to it the war probably would have turned out VERY VERY differently. Thankfully he was arrogant to a fault.
actually until the allies began to push the germans back, Hitler had been a very good military leader. Tyrant or not, he was the mastermind behind their german advance that swept though europe. The tide only turned when the US joined the fight and we had the man power to push him back, we won the war.... Hitler didn't lose it (if you catch my meaning). it was only when things got really bad that Hitler became more and more desperate and stopped thinking straight (well by his standards lol).
Hitler was always a kneejerk reactionary military leader. The blitzkrieg was a collaboration thing and relied very heavily on surprise and their superior tank technology. This had little do with Hitler and more to do with common sense.
The siege of Stalingrad was one of the biggest tactical blunders to ever grace an attacking army. As if attacking the Soviet Union wasn't enough, doing so in the winter, as well as allowing the lions share of your army to be surrounded in Stalingrad when Hitler had MULTIPLE chances to retreat and cut his losses dramatically is almost hilarious in its ridiculousness. Almost all of Hitler's generals told him point blank that Stalingrad was going to turn into a death trap if he didn't GTFO. He didn't GTFO and it turned into a death trap, and then the Soviet Union steam rolled Germany.
That was when the tide changed in the war. It had little to do with the US. The US's main contribution in WW2 occurred in the Pacific theater. The European theater was dominated by the British crippling the Luftwaffe and the Soviet Union picking over half of Germany's available army to pieces. The US helped with Normandy and all that but by that time all the signs for a German collapse was already there because of Hitlers stubborn and frankly retarded attack on Stalingrad.
If Germany had never attacked Russia, or if they had retreated from Stalingrad... the war would have turned out differently. I'm not saying that Germany would have won, but the Allied breakout after Normandy would have been much more difficult than it already was if the red army wasn't breathing down Germany's neck at the same time. If Germany had won or just not been completely steam rolled on the eastern front they may have had the time necessary to either develop a weapon of mass destruction, or some sort of stalemate.
Hitler's arrogance is why the German army collapsed as quickly as it did. The German military commanders were scary good, the world is lucky Hitler was arrogant.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Gxtnq.jpg)
