Conspiracy theorists turn up in implosion discussion March 18, 2006 3:39 PM   Subscribe

Ok, so I'm guessing that we should add building implosions to the list of "things we can't talk about on Metafilter?"
posted by Afroblanco to MetaFilter-Related at 3:39 PM (41 comments total)

Conspiracy theorists - I don't care if the truth is out there. Please take your spam to another thread. Thank you.
posted by Afroblanco at 3:39 PM on March 18, 2006


When you watch this on Saturday, note how remarkably similar this process looks to the "collapses" of WTC 1,2, and 7.
posted by stenseng at 12:47 PM PST on March 17 [!]


And then it comes down not so "remarkably similar".

Priceless!
posted by stirfry at 3:46 PM on March 18, 2006


Umm, the bar for 'we can't talk about x' is getting awfully low, no? The WTC-related posted didn't make the thread unreadable, and it didn't degerate into an extended flamewar.
posted by Space Coyote at 3:49 PM on March 18, 2006


What I'm worried about are the building implosions carried out by tubby circumcisionists who take lots of drugs to deal with depression brought about from shabby treatment at Critical Mass rides because they tend to use spaces, not tabs.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:51 PM on March 18, 2006


Those WTC comments made me laugh and laugh and laugh. This internet thing really is filled with wingnuts.
posted by OmieWise at 4:00 PM on March 18, 2006


I <3 ROU_xenophobe
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:12 PM on March 18, 2006


...because they tend to use spaces, not tabs.

in SUV's!
posted by quonsar at 4:23 PM on March 18, 2006


Was that thread worse before I looked at it?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:08 PM on March 18, 2006


The thread was just peachy. It started off with ho-hum comments about the future event, promises to find videos, and then some poking-fun at the conspiracists.

Very funny how the implosion utterly failed to emulate the WTC collapse.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:28 PM on March 18, 2006


Reading the comments from the 9-11 conspiracy theorists is like having Thanksgiving dinner twenty years running with your sweet Granny and then hearing her tell you the turkey is dry "because of the fucking kikes and spics". I'm not sure whether to laugh out loud or be very, very concerned, it's so fucked up. And yet a part of me knows these nutjobs walk among us just the same as people that harbor similarly looney views on race and keep it well hidden.
posted by docpops at 7:34 PM on March 18, 2006


Very funny how the implosion utterly failed to emulate the WTC collapse.

Should we inform demolitionologists that the way to bring a large hi-rise down completely on it's own footprint is to just collapse the upper levels and let gravity do the work?
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 8:10 PM on March 18, 2006


I think the demonologists are gonna figure the hi-rise was deliberately toppled sideways so that skeptics would be able to laugh at them.

Ha!
posted by five fresh fish at 8:37 PM on March 18, 2006


Demolitionology VS. Demonology.
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 8:51 PM on March 18, 2006


Was that thread worse before I looked at it?

Possibly. The very act of observing a thread can change it.
posted by kindall at 9:49 PM on March 18, 2006


OMG. Schnoz, do you really think for a moment I did not deliberately type 'demonology'?

You are taking this shit waaaaay too seriously.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:14 PM on March 18, 2006


why is it so hard for some of you to believe the towers were intentionally demolished?

is it so different from starting a totally specious war that results in way more death and mayhem than 9/11?

there's an easier way to shut us all up--

point to some examples of high rise skyscrapers coming down from fire.

there have got to be tons of instances of that, right? especially given that every major skyscraper will have a major fire at some point in its useful lifetime.

so aside from 9/11, when else has a building collapsed from fire?

anyone?
posted by Hat Maui at 10:38 PM on March 18, 2006


aside from 9/11, when else has a building collapsed from being hit by a jumbo jet, filled with fuel, with the sole purpose of taking it down?
posted by SuperNova at 10:46 PM on March 18, 2006


I do it all the time. In MS Flight Simulator. Sears Tower is lots of fun. 747-400s, throttle max, gear down, juddering across the sky like some kind of flying epileptic space whale, Mach 0.6 and climbing.

...and rotate!

Doing inverted passes through stuff like bridge spans and the Eiffel Tower is fun, too. Though it'd be more fun if I could hear the shrieking tourists. I also enjoy Mach 1.5, 50 foot AGL runs through windy canyons in smaller, faster combat aircraft.
posted by loquacious at 11:32 PM on March 18, 2006


HEH, Microsoft released a update after 911 that took the towers out of MS Flightsim 2000. I bet noone downloaded that patch and in fact MS Flightsim 2000 sales probably went up.
posted by Dreamghost at 2:11 AM on March 19, 2006


I listen to Alex Jones sometimes for entertainment purposes. And i always wonder if it's a act like Phil Hendrie or he really believes in some of the loonier stuff that people call in on his show?
posted by Dreamghost at 2:16 AM on March 19, 2006


Dreamghost: Yeah, I remember that patch. No, I didn't install it. Damn, there's few enough "real" places like that on the maps where you can thread the needle between two perfectly parallel, incredibly tall, easily identifiable buildings. Or, say, smash into them in fits of atavistic self-therapy in an attempt to comprehend.
posted by loquacious at 5:05 AM on March 19, 2006


And yet a part of me knows these nutjobs walk among us just the same as people that harbor similarly looney views on race and keep it well hidden.

They vote, too.
posted by Mikey-San at 5:57 AM on March 19, 2006


Well there's now an AskMe thread on 9/11 conspiracy theories so maybe that will drain off some of the consipiracy talk from the building demolition thread?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:09 AM on March 19, 2006


so aside from 9/11, when else has a building collapsed from fire?

Any number of little sisters' dollhouses have been so consumed, I imagine. If you need an object lesson in the difference in heat levels between Without Jet Fuel and With, try putting your hand on the stove on low and high. After you're done, I think you'll realize you learned a very interesting lesson.
posted by yerfatma at 8:50 AM on March 19, 2006


Uh... Aside from 9/11, how many 100+ story buildings have been hit by jumboliners? Isn't it kinda like asking 'Aside from Hitler, how many fascists have conquered Europe?'
posted by klangklangston at 9:02 AM on March 19, 2006


Godwin!

[close]
posted by scarabic at 11:05 AM on March 19, 2006


What's amazing is that the jetfuel was hot enough to melt steel, but not the terrorist ringleader's passport.

/just kidding. I think.
posted by cell divide at 11:22 AM on March 19, 2006


As one of the people being denigrated with OMG CONSPIRCY NUTS!!!1!!1! comments:

-I did advise donning the tinfoil hat right off. If you don't like tinfoil hat comments or links, this should have been your first clue to move along.

-If anyone can provide an answer as to how a 40 story building (WTC 7) was set up for controlled demolition in 8 hours (as I said in my original comment, WTC complex owner Larry Silverstein does openly say the building was "pulled", or imploded), I'd love to hear it. My point was that there are a lot of questions as to how this could've been pulled off.

-There was a WTC derail to to the thread comments that I did participate in, but as mentioned above it did not detract or make into a mess the original discussion at hand.

So afroblanco, take your bullshit callouts somewhere else as well.
posted by rollbiz at 11:44 AM on March 19, 2006


So afroblanco, take your bullshit callouts somewhere else as well.

The 9-11 chatter was (A) an obvious derail and (B) an obvious derail into some very irritating territory. I believe that it did detract from the quality of the thread.

I have a strong aversion to conspiracy theories, for reasons that I can elaborate on if necessary.
posted by Afroblanco at 12:05 PM on March 19, 2006


Um, nope. We don't care. I think that was made apparent by the fact that no one else is joining you in your one man crusade against them, and in fact it would seem that a few people in this and the original thread wanted to know what the big deal was.

But you go on protecting the blue from itself, if it makes you feel better.
posted by rollbiz at 12:09 PM on March 19, 2006


Talking about building implosions is fine, and should be encouraged. Talking about September 11 conspiracy theories--well, that we can do without.

Hat Maui:
Okay, fine. You submit the WTC buildings were intentionally demolished. Given that a demolition job of that size and complexity requires hundreds of people to engineer, plan, coordinate, and execute, please answer this question: How could so many people keep such an incredible secret?
posted by fandango_matt at 12:29 PM on March 19, 2006


there have got to be tons of instances of that, right? especially given that every major skyscraper will have a major fire at some point in its useful lifetime.

so aside from 9/11, when else has a building collapsed from fire?


How many buildings have had fires involving hundreds of tons of jet fuel?

I mean really, why is it hard for people to believe that a jet could bring down a building like the WTC?

Of course the demolition was "staged" it was staged by al Quada, an organization with tons structural engineers. And it was done by ramming a plain into it. Seems like a totally reasonable explanation to me.
posted by delmoi at 3:35 PM on March 19, 2006


Saying that the WTC couldn't be taken down by "fire" is like holocaust deniers claming that the holocaust couldn't happen because burning a body in an crematorium takes 30 minutes, while the Nazis would have needed to burn bodies in 10 minutes, which is possible.

Well, it's only impossible if you don't consider the idea that Nazis could have built a more efficient crematorium.

Similarly there's a huge difference between some papers in an office burning and thousands of pounds of jet fuel burning.
posted by delmoi at 3:38 PM on March 19, 2006


Just don't mention the war, and you'll be fine.
posted by blue_beetle at 5:22 PM on March 19, 2006


I think that was made apparent by the fact that no one else is joining you in your one man crusade against them

*joins crusade, signs membership card, dons uniform, pledges fealty to Afroblanco*
posted by LarryC at 6:42 PM on March 19, 2006


LarryC, you are among the chosen. We shall go forth on our 2-man crusade, until it becomes a 3-man crusade, and then a four-man crusade, and then a crusade the likes of which the world has never seen! We will find all of those conspiracy theories, and cut them to shreds with Occam's Razor! We shall be VICTORIOUS!
posted by Afroblanco at 6:56 PM on March 19, 2006


I have a strong aversion to conspiracy theories, for reasons that I can elaborate on if necessary.

Please, no. We don't care. MeFi is not going to conform to your phobias.

You'll just have to settle for mocking them, not banning them.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:19 PM on March 19, 2006


"Give me some men who are stout-hearted men
Who will fight for the right they adore;
Start me with ten who are stout-hearted men
And I'll soon give you ten thousand more..."
posted by languagehat at 6:26 AM on March 20, 2006


i'd encourage those of you who are convinced that fire could have been the cause to peruse this link to the steven jones article (he's a byu physics professor).

it never occurred to me that a demolition would have been possible, either, but when you separate out some of the chaff of demolition evidence, there's some pretty compelling stuff there. not speculative, evidentiary. things like audible explosions before the collapses, free-fall collapse speeds, that sort of stuff.

start here.
posted by Hat Maui at 4:40 PM on March 20, 2006


Is that perchance the same Jones who says Jesus came to converse with some Americans?
posted by stirfry at 9:19 PM on March 20, 2006


stirfry, do you hew to a religious tradition? do you automatically reject the views of anyone on any subject that does?

is c.s. lewis or bill clinton or antonin scalia or jimmy carter an idiot because he believes that there's some dude named christ who saved him from something called "original sin" a couple millennia ago?

yours is the essence of the ad hominem argument. when you can respond to the substance of the article, then please rebut to the best of your ability.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:42 AM on March 21, 2006


« Older my little comment ponies   |   Bad parodies make bad posts Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments