Conspiracy Theorists

[smudge]

I notice a few have hijacked another thread. May be new faces on here, most likely just different user names.
Well, it appears I am one of millions of idiots who believe it was terrorists responsible for 9/11.
Something about building 7?
Thought I'd start this thread so these Masterminds can show me where to find the facts that back up their theories.

 

[half time scores]

Be careful!


You may be led in the wrong direction

 

[Wrong-Direction]

YouTube!

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Questions]

I notice a few have hijacked another thread. May be new faces on here, most likely just different user names.
Well, it appears I am one of millions of idiots who believe it was terrorists responsible for 9/11.
Something about building 7?
Thought I'd start this thread so these Masterminds can show me where to find the facts that back up their theories.

They won't have anything to back up their claims apart from the newsreader who stated that building 7 had come down when in fact it was still standing but burning ferociously inside. Almost certainly there had been talk that it 'might well' or 'could possibly' come down and the tv reporter/station accidentally jumped the gun on it so to speak.
Most of the conspiracy theorists are mentalists I have come to realise over the years.

 

[rogersix]

I notice a few have hijacked another thread. May be new faces on here, most likely just different user names.
Well, it appears I am one of millions of idiots who believe it was terrorists responsible for 9/11.
Something about building 7?
Thought I'd start this thread so these Masterminds can show me where to find the facts that back up their theories.

the darkest, dingiest corners of their fevered, baffled minds

 

[Normal Rob]

conspiracy theorists are mentalists

This is possibly one of the most true 4 word combinations i've ever read on NSC.

 

[Juan Albion]

Something about building 7?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

Problem solved. Except the tinfoilers will convince themselves that professional engineers are in on it. Their other tactic is to say "well how do you explain..." and trot out another pile of misinformation, coincidence and irrelevancy. Thing is, they know if they don't come up with some crazy argument they will have been exposed as berks.

 

[daveinprague]

Ask them why the 'inside job' was carried out. It's hilarious

 

[Bold Seagull]

Interestingly, conspiracy theories have led to some good science.

For example, the US is pretty much the only country searching for signals from extraterrestrial life. Culturally, the government can justify the science spend because so many people in America believe they've been visited by UFOs. This has led to developments in radio signal detection, and developments in that area.

 

[DavidRyder]

They won't have anything to back up their claims apart from the newsreader who stated that building 7 had come down when in fact it was still standing but burning ferociously inside. Almost certainly there had been talk that it 'might well' or 'could possibly' come down and the tv reporter/station accidentally jumped the gun on it so to speak.
Most of the conspiracy theorists are mentalists I have come to realise over the years.

 

[The_Viper]

Good of you to start such a neutral thread OP

 

[Guinness Boy]

How long until [MENTION=30847]Megazone[/MENTION] tells us DMT should be legalized?

 

[GOM]

Most of the conspiracy theorists are mentalists

You do know what a mentalist is don't you?

 

[Questions]

You do know what a mentalist is don't you?

mentalist

noun
1. U.S. : A magician who performs feats that apparently demonstrate extraordinary mental powers, such as mind-reading.
2. BRITISH informal : An eccentric or mad person.

As we are in Britain I'll take the 2nd meaning and besides if it's good enough for Partridge .........

 

[Triggaaar]

Ask them why the 'inside job' was carried out. It's hilarious

I don't really agree with you here. I think its fair to say that some people do gain from war, so it is in some people's interests for there to be war. IMO 'They wouldn't want an attack' is not a good enough reason to prove it was real.

The main reasons I feel we know the towers weren't destroyed by explosives are:

Thousands of eye witnesses and live tv crews watched the jets hit the towers.
We know that the resulting fires were huge, and burning at a high temperature.
We know that at that temperature steel loses its strength.
We can see the towers collapse from the top - the bottom half of the towers stay in place as the tops fall down - the opposite of buildings destroyed with explosives.
When watching (much smaller) buildings brought down by explosives, you can hear huge explosions immediately before the collapse - those explosions are missing from the collapse of all towers in 9/11.
To place the explosives in the towers would have taken a lot of time and visible work, which people working there would have noticed. It would also have taken a lot of people who knew they'd be murdering thousands, and they would need to be silenced. That's not realistic.

Therefore it makes sense that the buildings were destroyed due to the jets crashing into them, and the idea of the buildings being destroyed by explosives is clearly false.

 

[rogersix]

I don't really agree with you here. I think its fair to say that some people do gain from war, so it is in some people's interests for there to be war. IMO 'They wouldn't want an attack' is not a good enough reason to prove it was real.

The main reasons I feel we know the towers weren't destroyed by explosives are:

Thousands of eye witnesses and live tv crews watched the jets hit the towers.
We know that the resulting fires were huge, and burning at a high temperature.
We know that at that temperature steel loses its strength.
We can see the towers collapse from the top - the bottom half of the towers stay in place as the tops fall down - the opposite of buildings destroyed with explosives.
When watching (much smaller) buildings brought down by explosives, you can hear huge explosions immediately before the collapse - those explosions are missing from the collapse of all towers in 9/11.
To place the explosives in the towers would have taken a lot of time and visible work, which people working there would have noticed. It would also have taken a lot of people who knew they'd be murdering thousands, and they would need to be silenced. That's not realistic.

Therefore it makes sense that the buildings were destroyed due to the jets crashing into them, and the idea of the buildings being destroyed by explosives is clearly false.

all, merely opinion

 

[GT49er]

I don't really agree with you here. I think its fair to say that some people do gain from war, so it is in some people's interests for there to be war. IMO 'They wouldn't want an attack' is not a good enough reason to prove it was real.

The main reasons I feel we know the towers weren't destroyed by explosives are:

Thousands of eye witnesses and live tv crews watched the jets hit the towers.
We know that the resulting fires were huge, and burning at a high temperature.
We know that at that temperature steel loses its strength.
We can see the towers collapse from the top - the bottom half of the towers stay in place as the tops fall down - the opposite of buildings destroyed with explosives.
When watching (much smaller) buildings brought down by explosives, you can hear huge explosions immediately before the collapse - those explosions are missing from the collapse of all towers in 9/11.
To place the explosives in the towers would have taken a lot of time and visible work, which people working there would have noticed. It would also have taken a lot of people who knew they'd be murdering thousands, and they would need to be silenced. That's not realistic.

Therefore it makes sense that the buildings were destroyed due to the jets crashing into them, and the idea of the buildings being destroyed by explosives is clearly false.

Oh you rotten spoilsport!

 

[Wrong-Direction]

I don't really agree with you here. I think its fair to say that some people do gain from war, so it is in some people's interests for there to be war. IMO 'They wouldn't want an attack' is not a good enough reason to prove it was real.

The main reasons I feel we know the towers weren't destroyed by explosives are:

Thousands of eye witnesses and live tv crews watched the jets hit the towers.
We know that the resulting fires were huge, and burning at a high temperature.
We know that at that temperature steel loses its strength.
We can see the towers collapse from the top - the bottom half of the towers stay in place as the tops fall down - the opposite of buildings destroyed with explosives.
When watching (much smaller) buildings brought down by explosives, you can hear huge explosions immediately before the collapse - those explosions are missing from the collapse of all towers in 9/11.
To place the explosives in the towers would have taken a lot of time and visible work, which people working there would have noticed. It would also have taken a lot of people who knew they'd be murdering thousands, and they would need to be silenced. That's not realistic.

Therefore it makes sense that the buildings were destroyed due to the jets crashing into them, and the idea of the buildings being destroyed by explosives is clearly false.

Yeah apart from building 7 that was clearly brought down with explosives.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Triggaaar]

Oh you rotten spoilsport!

A conspiracy theory I can get behind...
The government knew an attack was coming, and they didn't want to stop it as they wanted an excuse for war.

That's a little harder to disprove.

 

[daveinprague]

Yep. The 'elite' destroyed one of their Financial centers, and their military hub, to give a reason for a war. Makes sense.