[ConservativeStatement]

Admins, title was altered to fit.

[dfwgator]

There’s nothing you could show them that would make the whackos shut up.

[mnehring]

It wont shut up the idiots.

[driftdiver]

Fire doesn’t melt steel, right?

[Retired Greyhound]

I walked out of a party about a month ago when a guy started up about how 9/11 was an inside job.

It was that or knock his teeth out, and I can’t afford that right now.

The kooks really are out there.

[Dilbert56]

I loved the History Channel program that reviewed and debunked the conspiracy theories. They covered the theory that WTC 7 was destroyed by the CIA to wipe out some files that were stored in their. An investigator asked if they really believed the CIA has no other method for destroying files than destroying an entire building. The theory sounds really stupid when phrased that way.

[chessplayer]

The troofers will just say the video is fake.

[EggsAckley]

It floors me that these people can claim that no planes hit the WTC. I saw it with my very own eyes. So was it holograms? Mass hypnosis?

I also saw the tail of the plane sticking out of the Pentagon building. Did I dream that?

Those are the questions they can’t answer. Just believe what they say and pay no attention to the idiot behind the curtain.

[Nepeta]

My favorite conspiracy “proof” was the wire mesh cage ( about a cubic foot in size) with the fire lit inside PROVING that the metal did not melt...

[Pan_Yan]

I told you to put on the sunglasses.

[Tublecane]

“Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims”

This is one aspect of conspiracy craziness I’ll never understand. The conspirators are genius enough to pull it off, but stupid enough to pass off the implausible as possible. Why bother burning down Building 7 at all? What do you gain that’s worth violating (conspiracy nuts’ version of) science? Aren’t the Twin Towers enough?

Same thing with the nuts’ central claim about “controlled demolition.” If you’re gonna blow up the Twin Towers, why bother with airplanes? Is the image too dear to worry about the nearly infinite complexity they add to a simple bomb plot? And if so, why not just fly the planes into the building without demoliting them? Or must the image be planes flying into buildings which then collapse, and nothing else? Why, especially as it would inevitably raise questions among “scientists” who on’t think fire can weaken metal?

Nevermind all that/ Let’s say it makes perfect sense. Why, oh why, on top of all that, I ask again, must they demolish building 7? You can almost convince me demolition without planes and planes without demolition aren’t enough. Okay, you can’t, but you can convince me to pretend so. However, I’ll never accept that demolishing some rinky-dink little side building that no one paid attention to at the time and no one remembers nowadays was necessary. No way.

[erod]

Ping a ling