Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
And I just saw 'moderator' next to username. They know how to breed them here.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
So was 9/11 an inside job or not? (merged)
- Thread starter Wrong-Direction
- Start date
And I just saw 'moderator' next to username. They know how to breed them here.
This thread is pure gold (for insults). You bunch of snivelling shits.
Wrong-Direction
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2013
- 13,621
- Thread starter
- #523
Haven't seen any EVEIDENCE yet but who knows..
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
dadams2k11
ID10T Error
Or maybe they can't bump her off because people will question it?
SIMMO SAYS
Well-known member
I would just like to say that I got banned from NSC for being mildly irritating a few years ago. Your post should be looked at.
Geestar
New member
Ludicrous.
Sent from my TA-1020 using Tapatalk
Sent from my TA-1020 using Tapatalk
dadams2k11
ID10T Error
People can't accept others views/believes/opinions without insulting others. It's those people who have not taken time to research it their self's and just believe what people say and carry on with their life's. Each to their own I suppose. Like I said it's not like the government/police have lied before is it?
But they can manage to crash two airliners into the World Trade Centre?
Yeah, I can see their problem.
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
Was thinking the same... don't hold your breath.
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
Yeah, I did all this six months ago. Its earlier in the thread.
This is the problem with conspiracy theories. Hypothetical questions are posed as if there is no answer, and therefore the only truth is the conspiracy. When of course all these questions are either misleading completely irrelevant, not scientifically sound, or have been satisfactorily answered many times other. But conspiracists only have to pose the misleading questions, then sit back and watch everyone debate themselves into oooh, I'm not sure....
....
but OK:
why was the steel removed before anyone could examine it? - This question is false, as part of the steel was indeed kept for examination and the rest was removed and ultimately recycled, there were about 185,000 tonnes, of course you don't test it all. The question then implies there are conclusions that can be reached only by testing it all, which is of course not how science or investigations work
How many other steel framed buildings before and since have completely fallen into their own for print after a fire for a few hours? Well, some have, but this question implies that all buildings are built the same, when most older buildings are heavier with different load-bearing structures; secondly it ignores the unique circumstances of this disaster, the huge impact energy from a jumbo jet hitting the building at velocity and the huge loads of jet-fuel contained. No similar accident has occurred before or since. Comparing this fire to other fires is designed to mislead.
Then we get to the classic 'completely fallen into their own footprint impossibility' line of questioning. This question posits that the buildings fell in a way that they actually didn't - in fact debris was scattered over a huge area, including WTC 7 1,370 feet away - it was that debris that caused WTC 7 to come down. Then the question supposes that these are the first steel-framed buildings to collapse in this way - not true. The questions states that the pancake effect is the theory on why the buildings came down - not true, pancake theory was officially rejected, the cause of the collapse was the perimeter support columns being damaged and detaching from the floors, which then fell into and through the tower
The Pentagon question is cunning, as it asks us to assume that there would have been a high-res video camera trained exactly on the point the plane hit. In today's day and age of CCTV, we might assume that as a given. But there wasn't, in fact what there was was a time-lapse camera and the freeze frame shots are all that camera ever took. But the question is asked in a way to mislead us and get us pondering why the footage wasn't released - when there isn't, and never was, any footage. We then might fail to ask why that in itself is supposed to prove that a plane didn't hit the pentagon, when there are numerous eye-witness accounts, footage of debris outside the Pentagon, light posts taken out by the wing, bits of plane scattered all over the lawn..
and so on and so on and so on.
How about those of us who have watched a load of these youtube videos and also read / watched all the stuff that debunks them as UTTER RUBBISH?
Why do the conspiracy theorists presume that nobody else has seen the stuff that they have when in many cases the people responding to them have? Rhetorical question obviously as that would mean throwing your whole "higher ground" mentality into a tailspin.
People who have done real research say that the conspiracy theories are bullshit and yet those who have read the real research, watched the youtube stuff and have come to their own conclusions are accused of "not taking time to research" stuff. Do you not realise how completely mental that is?
It's pure, willful madness and I have no problem calling it out for what it is.
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
If the government did it, they did it by hijacking four planes and flying two of them into the WTC, one of them into the Pentagon, and losing control of the other one which crashed into a field.
If that information comes out it will be shocking, but I can accept it.
What I can't accept are stupid theories about controlled detonations, mass cover-ups, make-believe planes at the Pentagon, and so on. Its just silly shit that detracts from our real issues with government, corruption, lies and propaganda. Much more important shit to focus on.
JoePrecious
New member
- Mar 3, 2009
- 191
Stop being so bloody sensible and logical, there's no place for it on this thread!
Yoda
English & European
Out of the hundreds & thousands of conspiracy theories? About 0.03% at the most probably.
I can only find a list of 33 that have turn out to be true in one way or another, yet if you think how many there have been (I could list well over 100 from the top of my head from Hitler survived the war and was taken to the USA with all the other Nazi scientists, to Princess Di, to "ChemTrails" & New Coca-Cola. Lincoln, JFK, Freemasons, Illuminati, Lockerbie, Global Warming, Weather Control, Aliens, Flat Earth....... The list is ****ing endless)
Like I've said before, >99% of conspiracy theories are made up by people who CANNOT handle the truth.
Or to make a load of money out of it like Alex Jones etc.
No it didn't, it clearly wasn't explosives. I've explained this to you before (maybe even this thread), with videos of how buildings really come down with explosives - with really loud explosions and collapsing from the bottom, not the top.
How old are you?
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
D
Deleted User X18H
Guest
I have said before I was a claims broker for Willis Towers Watson ( are you watching Titcomb - it’s gone six years now) and I collected millions on behalf of Gulf Insurance in relation to their £10m xs £10m excess of loss protection re their Silverstein liability.
There was something unusual about the way Silverstein had increased his cover and the endorsement precedent to liability that determined each tower would constitute two seperate events.
That is all.
There was something unusual about the way Silverstein had increased his cover and the endorsement precedent to liability that determined each tower would constitute two seperate events.
That is all.
dadams2k11
ID10T Error
Hang on, I've not said the government crashed the planes, for all we know they could have known it was gonna happen and let it happen?
Pearl harbour?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-memo-shows-US-warned-of-Japanese-attack.html
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
It was of course and inside job with G Bush Jnr planning it all. Other news is it has been proved the Earth is flat