Conspiracy Theorists

[Hungry Joe]

It's very sad because he was a decent person until he started drinking alcohol. Once he became an alcoholic, every thing went completely insane for him. His biggest problem was how he always argued how alcohol is safe unlike all the illegal drugs. That was his excuse to keep drinking and sadly the denial ripped apart his family too.

Aye, sounds familiar. On either end of the alcohol vs cannabis / other drugs debate things tend to be unrealistically polarised. The drinkers in denial will say what your acquaintance said, the hard core stoners etc in denial will argue that their drug of choice is the lesser of the available 'evils'. I've flown close to the sun on both counts in the past, as have many of my friends, and the damage done on both sides is fairly proportionate in terms of psychosis, depression, suicide / early death, families and lives torn apart. Probably the one consistent difference is the propensity for violence with some alcohol abusers not being mirrored with other drugs in the same numbers, although there are plenty of exceptions to the rule there too. Abstinence or moderation is the way I think.

 

[brighton fella]

Says the guttersnipe who PM'd me telling me as soon he was out of prison you were going to come and find me. I believe that was all over some pathetic conspiracy theory you had. There aren't many on here I think are truly disturbed. You and Megazone are.

What a load of trash. What in fu*ks name has any of that pathetic piece of irrelevance got to do with double standards. ?.

 

[Nibble]

What a load of trash. What in fu*ks name has any of that pathetic piece of irrelevance got to do with double standards. ?.

I shall leave you to figure that gem out. Lovely to speak with you again. I see you're still charming.

 

[LlcoolJ]

No problem mate, I detest double standards.full stop.

What a load of trash. What in fu*ks name has any of that pathetic piece of irrelevance got to do with double standards. ?.

 

[colinz]

Because from reading your posts both now, and 5 and a half years ago, I've deduced that you're a lost cause. You're either too high or too stupid to understand what happened.

Diddums I'm not bothered about you or your insults.

You are the lost cause. You keep changing your mind on the logistics of the whole 9/11 event. You have to now admit to your self the live broadcast footage was faked. Your starting to suffer from Cognitive Dissonance don't say I didn't warn you.

I'm a lost cause to you because your unable to manipulate me to win the debate. So now you behave like a petulant School boy which you obviously are.

 

[LlcoolJ]

You have to now admit to your self the live broadcast footage was faked.

 

[brighton fella]

I shall leave you to figure that gem out. Lovely to speak with you again. I see you're still charming.

Speak to me in a nice pleasant and polite manner and i am every bit as charming as the next person....Upset me with some cocky remark and charming gets thrown out the window. Your choice fella.

 

[brighton fella]

View attachment 89999



View attachment 90000

:

PARLANCE You ta@t.

 

[Megazone]

So the fundamentalists already had enough reason to attack the US. Did the attack also suit some people in the US - yes, I would think it did. At the very worst of what I can imagine could have happened, people within the US could have helped facilitate the attacks. Given the loss of life, this would be particularly sick, but I'm not going to categorically rule it out because I just don't have the evidence. What is not possible is that there were no jets, but missiles instead, and buildings rigged to be blown up, that's just fantasy land.

I think the most likely scenario is that Al Qaeda orchestrated the attacks (I won't go so far as to speculate whether or not anyone in the US government knew).

I don't think it really matters how the buildings collapsed. What's more important is who made them collapse and why?

We're being made to believe it was all orchestrated by a bunch of sociopathic Muslim extemists. We are also being told that the agenda for these attacks was so the terrorists could fulfil their extreme Muslim belief they'll end up in some weird grandiose form of afterlife. We're also being made to believe that a man called Bin Laden was the main man behind this massive terrorist attack. We were being told Bin Laden was the most wanted man in the world but yet when we finally found and killed him, we just lobbed him off a helicopter over sea that same day?

Honestly Trigaaar, I have a lot of respect for your angle on all this. You're clearly quite open minded about the whole 9/11 story and you've not jumped on any taking sides, but doesn't any of that just seem a bit too strange?

 

[LlcoolJ]

:

PARLANCE[emoji38]ol:[emoji38]ol:[emoji38]ol: You ta@t.

ta@t?

 

[brighton fella]

ta@t?

Observant as well as daft, well spotted

 

[Nibble]

Speak to me in a nice pleasant and polite manner and i am every bit as charming as the next person....Upset me with some cocky remark and charming gets thrown out the window. Your choice fella.

Shove it up your bollocks.

 

[brighton fella]

Shove it up your bollocks.

What a charming.person you are.

 

[Triggaaar]

I don't think it really matters how the buildings collapsed. What's more important is who made them collapse and why?

Knowing why they collapsed helps give clues as to who caused it. If they had collapsed due to explosives, that would more than raise a few questions. Assuming it's the jets though - well it'll probably never be possible to see whether the US had any idea or not.

We're being made to believe it was all orchestrated by a bunch of sociopathic Muslim extemists. We are also being told that the agenda for these attacks was so the terrorists could fulfil their extreme Muslim belief they'll end up in some weird grandiose form of afterlife. We're also being made to believe that a man called Bin Laden was the main man behind this massive terrorist attack. We were being told Bin Laden was the most wanted man in the world but yet when we finally found and killed him, we just lobbed him off a helicopter over sea that same day?

Honestly Trigaaar, I have a lot of respect for your angle on all this. You're clearly quite open minded about the whole 9/11 story and you've not jumped on any taking sides, but doesn't any of that just seem a bit too strange?

Thanks. I don't find it particularly strange Going through the points in order:
Evidence before and since 9/11 suggests that Islamic extremists do want to cause damage and death to the West, and they are willing to kill themselves to achieve their goal, so I don't have an issue believing that.
Whether it was Bin Laden or someone else doesn't really matter, but I don't have a problem believing that someone was in charge of these attacks, and it could have been him.
I don't think he was lobbed off a helicopter, I think he was lobbed off a ship - same difference. I would think it would have been preferable to keep him alive, however capturing him alive would have been a more risky operation, so I can believe they just chose to go with a policy of shoot to kill to increase the chance of success. Once dead, they wanted him buried at sea, as it were, so that people didn't have a burial ground to come and worship, which also makes sense.
I think it's fair to say Bin Laden is no longer alive. Videos of him were posted in the past, they are not posted any more.

What seems so strange to you? Do you not think terrorists would have wanted to cause 9/11?

 

[BadFish]

Knowing why they collapsed helps give clues as to who caused it. If they had collapsed due to explosives, that would more than raise a few questions. Assuming it's the jets though - well it'll probably never be possible to see whether the US had any idea or not.

Thanks. I don't find it particularly strange Going through the points in order:
Evidence before and since 9/11 suggests that Islamic extremists do want to cause damage and death to the West, and they are willing to kill themselves to achieve their goal, so I don't have an issue believing that.
Whether it was Bin Laden or someone else doesn't really matter, but I don't have a problem believing that someone was in charge of these attacks, and it could have been him.
I don't think he was lobbed off a helicopter, I think he was lobbed off a ship - same difference. I would think it would have been preferable to keep him alive, however capturing him alive would have been a more risky operation, so I can believe they just chose to go with a policy of shoot to kill to increase the chance of success. Once dead, they wanted him buried at sea, as it were, so that people didn't have a burial ground to come and worship, which also makes sense.
I think it's fair to say Bin Laden is no longer alive. Videos of him were posted in the past, they are not posted any more.

What seems so strange to you? Do you not think terrorists would have wanted to cause 9/11?

I am sure I read something closer to the time suggesting that Bin Laden et Al organised it because of the US armed forces stationed over holy lands. Amongst other things of course, I will see if I can find a link later.

I watched fahrenheit 911 the other night and if that is to be believed the links between the Saudi families and the Bushes was huge. Not that much of a leap to believe they knew about it.

Probably been debunked by now, so who knows?

I think it is fair to say that the Islamic extremists want this holy war as much as anyone. The American government are not the only ones to benefit from the attack.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[BadFish]

Knowing why they collapsed helps give clues as to who caused it. If they had collapsed due to explosives, that would more than raise a few questions. Assuming it's the jets though - well it'll probably never be possible to see whether the US had any idea or not.

Thanks. I don't find it particularly strange Going through the points in order:
Evidence before and since 9/11 suggests that Islamic extremists do want to cause damage and death to the West, and they are willing to kill themselves to achieve their goal, so I don't have an issue believing that.
Whether it was Bin Laden or someone else doesn't really matter, but I don't have a problem believing that someone was in charge of these attacks, and it could have been him.
I don't think he was lobbed off a helicopter, I think he was lobbed off a ship - same difference. I would think it would have been preferable to keep him alive, however capturing him alive would have been a more risky operation, so I can believe they just chose to go with a policy of shoot to kill to increase the chance of success. Once dead, they wanted him buried at sea, as it were, so that people didn't have a burial ground to come and worship, which also makes sense.
I think it's fair to say Bin Laden is no longer alive. Videos of him were posted in the past, they are not posted any more.

What seems so strange to you? Do you not think terrorists would have wanted to cause 9/11?

A list of grievances.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

 

[Megazone]

Knowing why they collapsed helps give clues as to who caused it. If they had collapsed due to explosives, that would more than raise a few questions. Assuming it's the jets though - well it'll probably never be possible to see whether the US had any idea or not.

Thanks. I don't find it particularly strange Going through the points in order:
Evidence before and since 9/11 suggests that Islamic extremists do want to cause damage and death to the West, and they are willing to kill themselves to achieve their goal, so I don't have an issue believing that.
Whether it was Bin Laden or someone else doesn't really matter, but I don't have a problem believing that someone was in charge of these attacks, and it could have been him.
I don't think he was lobbed off a helicopter, I think he was lobbed off a ship - same difference. I would think it would have been preferable to keep him alive, howeve
What seems so strange to you? Do you not think terrorists would have wanted to cause 9/11?

I find it strange how the whole event was broadcasted across the world on every tv station. Even so there had never been a skyscraper brought down by a plane before in history, it was as if the media knew the buildings were going to collapse once the aeroplanes had hit the buildings hence why it was being filmed worldwide. There were people throwing themselves off the building and yet our media filmed all of it to us? Why did the media think the whole world needed to see these specific horrors live with a running commentary on it from every channel? Usually when horrific situations like that happens, they don't suddenly takeover every tv channel whilst the children's tv programmes were on here in the U.K.
What happened to the ''viewers may find this disturbing' consideration? Children, men and women were practically being forced to watch traumatising events which would've had damaging mental effects on a lot of the viewers, especially the kids who just got home from school. It was so bizarre and weird when it was on all our tv channels. Of course it was a massive attack and it's not normal to see two planes fly into separate buildings full of people, but why didn't it stay within just the news channels considering how disturbing the viewing actually turned out to be?

It was a bit like taking alook at the aftermath of a car crash and bringing your kids along to see too, but obviously on a much smaller fractal.

There was definitely something morally wrong about that day and it wasn't just the planes hitting the buildings.

 

[pastafarian]

You are clearly Brunswick, Rosa, the truth and Falmer's latest account!

Ha ha ha. You can't fool me you idiotic, Nutcase, tinfoil hatter loony boon.

Well done for spotting some users that were banned years before your join date, which one are you a reincarnation of?

 

[pastafarian]

Even so there had never been a skyscraper brought down by a plane before in history,

Throughout history how many skyscrapers that have had a 767 crash into them did you use as comparative analysis to be able to come out with that statement.?

 

[brighton fella]

View attachment 89967

Allen E Killsheimer, first structural engineer to arrive to co-ordinate the emergency at the Pentagon has given corroborated evidence (including the above photo) that he found bits of plane and black box, body parts and plane-wing marks on the face of the building.

If you want to read more then you can have a look at why snopes rates your theory as a complete crock of bullshit.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp

One piece of wreckage found, How convenient.for them.