Talk:9/11

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Actually it was a conspiracy. Just not "Teh guvment did it" one. User talk:0.0.0.0 04:46 24 September 2007

Nice sig, Crack. Now I have to range block every IP in existence. humanbe in 16:36, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Those palastinians you mentioned were real dicks, cheering for the death of innocent people. — Unsigned, by: 68.197.172.92 / talk / contribs

It's obvious the Great Khan and the Mongols were behind 9/11 the planes were holograms for giant exploding arrows.Why will you not let me explain the truth!? — Unsigned, by: 96.42.214.127 / talk / contribs

Wait a second here. Why AREN'T you explaining this thrilling connection?! Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Haven't read the article but I presume it's about commemorating the death of Dylan Thomas (9 November1953). Truly worth mention. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 01:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
F'ing drunk, there was no "milk" under his wood. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Their watchin us as we speak they have flying horse archers. — Unsigned, by: 96.42.214.127 / talk / contribs
Yup! ħumanUser talk:Human 07:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dirty libral comi scum did it --Asfly (I'm not realy)

I bet that slash in 9/11 creates several technical problems. JXZ would like you to have a delightful chat! 00:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And that's why we don't have subpages in main. TyAnnoy 00:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Take a look at this

I dont care about conspiracies, but there are very strong arguments in this video favoring the controlled demolition theory. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o


[edit] Argh!!

Ok, I need somebody's help here. It's my own fault, I know, but I've just watched In Plane Sight and damn me if I don't agree with them. Simple question - where's the wreckage at the Pentagon and at the crash site in the field? Looking at footage of the Pentagon before the section collapsed, there's just no way that a big huge plane caused that damage - the area is too small. And where's the wreckage? Not a wheel, not an engine, not a tail section? Nothing. Ditto the crash site - just a long scar in the ground? Planes don't vaporize on impact. Not to mention 2 planes burn hot enough to bring down the towers, while the pentagon smoulders a bit, leaving PCs and a wooden table untouched next to the impact site?

Somebody clever needs to point me in the direction of something that clearly shows how two planes can crash and vanish. And how can the tail section not damage the upper part of the pentagon, and yet mysteriously vanish? Something's cooky here. --PsyGremlin講話 17:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I remember, the plane didn't vaporise, it liquefied (effectively). There was debris all over the ground outside the pentagon - there's a famous refutation in some magazine or another of all the truther myths from a few years ago that includes pictures of the stuff. The wings sheared off, but the body of the plane basically punched a hole into the building, and the landing gear another hole below that. With the towers, unlike the pentagon, fire that traveled upwards would still have been in the building, causing a larger volume of burning to weaken the tower. And as for the 'long scar in the ground', look up 'erebus crash' in google images for a bit of a comparason (it's a crash on a snow-covered mountatin in Antarctica if you don't know). I get the impression that plane crashes don't look all that like what people envision. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 19:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
It was Popular Mechanics, now I come to look. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 19:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok Mount Erebus crash pics. Flight 93 crash pics. I can't believe a plane flying into the side of a mountain leaves more wreckage than a plane crashing in a field. --PsyGremlinTala! 19:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Erebus is on a white background, so you can see it better. And the 93 debris went quite a way. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 20:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
There's a somewhat simpler answer -- most of the Pentagon wreckage was inside the crash site. There was plenty on the lawn, but the plane crashed above ground level directly into the building, so that's where the bulk of the debris wound up. EVDebs (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Google Images, my friend. Engine components, a landing gear, body parts, and other fragments of the plane were found at the site. Did you expect the No Planers to leave in all the pictures of the crash site? Even other troofers think the No Planers are cranks, or plants covering up the conspiracy by our true overlords! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


In different parts of the page, the death toll is 'established at 2996' and 'over 3000' - clarify? 31.220.243.61 (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural left and 9/11?

Despite seeing 2 or 3 small vlogs on the subject, I'm having severe trouble dragging up sources about people blaming the cultural left for 9/11 for its filthy, evil decadent concepts like "Not being in an ass-backwards theocracy". I'd be tempted to have a section on it, but I don't think "the cultural left and its responsibility for 9/11 is a recommended result on Google" constitutes an argument.

  • I don't think you'll see much of that written in the last five years or so. Trutherism seems to be largely a province of the batshit wing of the Right these days, particularly Ron Paul's base. There are a few lefties who are still on the bandwagon (Charlie Sheen comes to mind) but they're either misguided or suffering from abject bugfuckery. EVDebs (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Failure to mention unusual anomalies, unexplained events and related phenomena which are a matter of public record....

The article is not impartial and fails to rebut the arguments of those who question the official story or mention unusual anomalies, unexplained events and related phenomena which are a matter of public record, including:

The most glaring inconsistency with the official story; building 7, one of the major buildings destroyed that day, and not even mentioned in this article, it fell hours after the towers, falling into its own footprint perfectly, just like a demolition job, and from minimal damage.

The fact that all jet fighters in america just happened to be on a training exercises, for that very scenario that very day.

the fact that explosions were heard in the basement by fire fighters, on public record, and that blast damage was witnessed at ground floor level that same day.

The fact that many of the pilots apparently involved in 911 are alive and well, (public record, look it up, BBC) The fact that all though none of the black boxes from the plains could be located, a passport and other documents were conveniently found relatively unharmed.

The fact that nano thermite was found in dust samples by independent researchers.

The fact that the evidence was not properly examined by the authorities.

If this site were truly rational, it would consider all of the possibilities, and make a rational and reasoned argument. This article displays an emotive, irrational, inability to examine all of the facts, or consider scenarios other than the official version, based on a fear, I suspect, of acknowledging that such corruption could exist within your own country, at such high levels. Of course there is no rational reason not to at least consider this very real possibility. In fact it would be rational to examine the circumstances of all relevant events to make sure that corruption does not flourish unexamined.

This is irrational, you guys can have a mutual back slapping session if you like, personally I can't be sure what happened one way or the other, but, before you get all impressed with yourselves and your supposed rationality, perhaps you'd like to examine the evidence and at least attempt to explain the anomalies mentioned above, or rebut the arguments of those who question the official version, some of whom lost family in the tragic events of that day.

It is now accepted that Iraq did not have WMD and was not connected to Al queda, no such organisation existed, the muslims who fought the "yer fer us or agin coalition of the willing against the axis of evil" were actually backed and organised by saudi salafists.

It follows that if these official stories have been shown to be untrue, then other official interpretations may also be untrue, and should at least be examined.

Otherwise, many of the commentators here are pretty much full of it, and themselves obviously, claiming to be something they are not, and the sites claims to rationality are discredited. Enjoy your irrational delusion, research bias and logical fallacy.

Can you format that better please? Also a fee citations from truly unbiased sources would be nice, and signing up to the site would be nice as well. I will say that it's good you took to the talk page, as opposed to just changing the article. If you talk softly we will listen. The Invisible ManI spoke to Him 11:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
And I just thought you might be better off creating an essay page as well.The Invisible ManI spoke to Him 11:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
All those points are addressed here. Prodigal (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought it was supposed to be RATIONALwiki! DRINK!!! Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 11:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Prodigal (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Title

I understand that this article's title is 9/11 (obviously), but I believe a better title would be September 11th attacks. I think that we should all have a formal vote to see what the title should be. All reliable sites like Wikipedia have their title as September 11th attacks and even thought we should have some snark on here, it seems we should have a more sophisticated title. Votes can go below. Leoesb1032 (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes:
  1. The first bolded text in the article is *September 11, 2001, not 9/11. I think snark and humor is awesome, but as I explianed, it would reflect better on this site to have a better title. Leoesb1032 (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


  • No:
  1. "9/11" has entered the vernacular— also, this is not Wikipedia. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. What he said. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 03:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Secret Squirrel (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Goat:
  1. How delightful; a goat option from a person who has only just signed up to the wiki - we assimilate well here. Tielec01 (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment- Although I just joined this wiki but I had been on Wikipedia for a while now and I switched because I wanted to have a chance on a more fun wiki. The point is that I know that little techy things and Wiki markups. So in reality I have about 5 month experience overall. Leoesb1032 (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support