What conspiracy theory do believe may be true?

[The Andy Naylor Fan Club]

I reckon Mr Hankey was murdered by the FBI/CIA in the away dressing room earlier this year.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

It has also been proved many time over your completely wrong about all of this. However:

Ok lets assume your right. So what? What does no uncontrollable fires mean? So what if the building didn't fall the way it was meant to? So what?

What has been "proved"? That a steel framed structure collapsed for no reason, but that's to be expected?

Why did it fall? What's the justification, what's the explanation? Genuine question - why do you think it fell? And does it make ANY logical sense to you? Because it doesn't to me. There's something very off about the Towers falling, but Building 7? No reason at all for that to just collapse on itself for no reason.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

I've been reading about 'conspiracy theories' over the past month (from objective balanced scholarly sources) and there are several things that are so demonstrably true from multiple perspectives that they can't possibly be considered 'theories'.

I'd happily tag the word FACT onto any of the following:


The US and UK governments knew that Iraq had no WMD when using a claim they had to justify an invasion.
Libya (as a whole, as well as those indicted) had nothing to do with Lockerbie.
The CIA has been involved in (amongst other things) drug running, funding terrorists and testing the mind control effects of LSD.

1 and 3 aren't conspiracy theories are they? I thought they were both widely known?

I know little of lockerbie, I was only a young kid when it happened. Who did do it and why?

 

[Jim Van Winkle]

Most people have jobs or college to attend, posting in the morning is fine at 2AM it shows people are quite addicted to this place lol.

What about the members of NSC that live in a different time zone or work night shifts. The fact that you used "lol" means you must be a 14 year old girl.

 

[Sergei's Celebration]

What has been "proved"? That a steel framed structure collapsed for no reason, but that's to be expected?

Why did it fall? What's the justification, what's the explanation? Genuine question - why do you think it fell? And does it make ANY logical sense to you? Because it doesn't to me. There's something very off about the Towers falling, but Building 7? No reason at all for that to just collapse on itself for no reason.

I might be missing something but I can't find the answers to my questions in your response.

 

[beorhthelm]

What has been "proved"? That a steel framed structure collapsed for no reason, ...

apart from the fires. theres certainly a question over how fire started, but theres no question there was a fire. and what you are believing is someone on the internet telling you the fires weren't enough, verses the fire crew on the ground that considered the fires uncontrolable and withdrew from fighting any more. if it wasnt fire, then what and where is the evidence - a rhetorical question because there never has been an alternative reason.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

I might be missing something but I can't find the answers to my questions in your response.

I assumed your question was rhetorical. How do you want it answered? You want some theory as to why Building 7 was demolished? I don't know why it was. I don't know what the motive may or may not have been, but the circumstances of the collapse don't add up. It fell straight down, not quite at "freefall" speed as has been alleged, but it fell neatly straight down. It's too suspicious to me, I can't explain why it fell and so far what I've read and heard doesn't begin to explain it.

apart from the fires. theres certainly a question over how fire started, but theres no question there was a fire. and what you are believing is someone on the internet telling you the fires weren't enough, verses the fire crew on the ground that considered the fires uncontrolable and withdrew from fighting any more. if it wasnt fire, then what and where is the evidence - a rhetorical question because there never has been an alternative reason.

Fire has never caused a steel building to collapse before though. And I struggle to believe it could have been uncontrollable considering it seemed pretty well contained in one section of the building. It's a stretch to believe the fires in the building caused it to collapse as it did.

 

[pastafarian]

Ferris Bueller does not exist and is purely a figment of Camerons imagination

 

[beorhthelm]

Fire has never caused a steel building to collapse before though.

untrue. you dont have to search far, the debunking will offer a dozen examples. a theatre and a oil platfrom spring to mind

And I struggle to believe it could have been uncontrollable considering it seemed pretty well contained in one section of the building. It's a stretch to believe the fires in the building caused it to collapse as it did.

it "seemed" contained according to who? people who weren't there, at odds with the firefighters who say it was. its a stretch to believe they were in on it and pulled out ready for some demolition to occur, for which there is no evidence. hey, maybe there were no fireman in there eh, its all fake? (like those that claim there were no planes but CGI, and no people in the towers either)

 

[fataddick]

1 and 3 aren't conspiracy theories are they? I thought they were both widely known?

I know little of lockerbie, I was only a young kid when it happened. Who did do it and why?

1 and 3 have never been formally admitted by the authorities in question, hence are still considered 'conspiracy theories' although the overwhelming evidence supports their validity. Similarly, conspiracy theories that are demonstrably false, such as 'the Protocols of the Elders of Zion' being a legitimate book, count as 'theories'.

As for Lockerbie, who: a PLO-linked Syrian group (PFLP-GC), possibly with Iranian support/funding, is considered by far the most likely culprits. Indeed, the West German police found radio bombs and altitude-triggered fuses in raids on PFLP-GC cells around Frankfurt in the weeks PRIOR to the bombing, along with a calendar with Dec 21st circled (Frankfurt Airport is where the Lockerbie flight departed on Dec 21st 1988). Most newspapers in the UK and elsewhere pointed the finger at Syria/Iran in the days after the bombing, and those were the key areas of investigation until - more than two years later, at George Bush's insistence - the blame was switched to Libya. Uncoincidentally, this was during the first Iraq War, which Syria and Iran were US allies in, whilst Libya favoured Iraq.

As for why: probably terrorism, pure and simple. There are a lot of interesting factors in play though, such as the fact that a four-man CIA team (fresh from Beirut) were on the team, or that the FBI turned up on the scene an hour or two after the cash and removed several items from the scene - British investigators demanded their return and got some items back, these included $500,000 cash and a briefcase full of heroin and cocaine. All of this is quantifiable fact. Conspiracy theorists spin off on it in all kinds of directions, many of them involving the assassination of the CIA team, either by terrorists or (more often stated) the CIA themselves - the team were rogue or were going to expose wider CIA activities blah blah etc etc. There are umpteen spin-off theories from this, blaming everyone from Mossad to the Vatican. This is all getting into proper tinfoil helmet conspiracist then.

The fact that Libya wasn't involved is the one element I will happily 'FACT'. Many of the Lockerbie victims family group have said the same, and it's widely believed that the Libyan framed for the bombing was released by the Scottish Parliament not so much for the stated compassionate grounds (he was terminally ill) but because they were well aware that he was innocent.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

untrue. you dont have to search far, the debunking will offer a dozen examples. a theatre and a oil platfrom spring to mind

it "seemed" contained according to who? people who weren't there, at odds with the firefighters who say it was. its a stretch to believe they were in on it and pulled out ready for some demolition to occur, for which there is no evidence. hey, maybe there were no fireman in there eh, its all fake? (like those that claim there were no planes but CGI, and no people in the towers either)

You're really not worth arguing with. I've followed your other posts on this subject and you're obviously very set in your opinions and unable to discuss anything with reason and rationale. I understand you don't want to question the official story, that's fine. If you believe fire caused Building 7 to fall, then that's fine. But I don't.

 

[Sergei's Celebration]

I've been reading about 'conspiracy theories' over the past month (from objective balanced scholarly sources) and there are several things that are so demonstrably true from multiple perspectives that they can't possibly be considered 'theories'.

I'd happily tag the word FACT onto any of the following:

Lee Harvey Osward could not have fired the shot that killed John F Kennedy.

Is this the guy that fired the fatal shot...

Ms Moorman was seen in videos to have a camera against her face.



After a while that photo became public... this should show exactly the moment of the fatal shot as she was directly opposite the knoll.



Not much there. Someone believed they could see a body / uniform.



We got him!

Or have we. Now every man and their dog decided to look for things...



Well the proof is out there and so was Orville Nix. The guy filmed the shooting, and in his video you can even see old uncle Ab' taking the footage the world knows so well. What was in Nix's film? Well after some photo giggerypokery...



Not the same person.

So two shooters and 4 men on the knoll then? Well we know thats not true as sound and video evidence doesnt support it. So which shooter was it? Or neither of them. Both these images have been debunked / rebunked / debunked again.

The good thing is you can believe what you want to believe, use what ever evidence you want to support it and someone will just find some branches, make them look like a person and say its the guy who killed kennedy.

 

[beorhthelm]

You're really not worth arguing with. I've followed your other posts on this subject and you're obviously very set in your opinions and unable to discuss anything with reason and rationale. I understand you don't want to question the official story, that's fine. If you believe fire caused Building 7 to fall, then that's fine. But I don't.

its not about not questioning the official story. do so, plenty to question. the point is you have set your opinion on the basis of third parties not witness to the event, nor are experts in the field. my opinion's formed from the testimony of those present in the first person and experts. if you wish to believe there was no fire/not enough fire in building 7, fine, but what is the alternative and were is the evidence? i understand you dont want to argue with me, because at this point you have nothing. for all the flaws and questions the official version of events contains, its better than the alternatives.

 

[Flex Your Head]

I can't help but think that it's a bit 'strange' or unlikely that 3 inexperienced pilots, who had only ever flown two-seaters or used simulations before that fateful day, managed to hit their targets so resoundingly with commercial airliners.

I do struggle with that.

 

[symyjym]

Is this the guy that fired the fatal shot...

Ms Moorman was seen in videos to have a camera against her face.

View attachment 47306

After a while that photo became public... this should show exactly the moment of the fatal shot as she was directly opposite the knoll.

View attachment 47307

Not much there. Someone believed they could see a body / uniform.

View attachment 47308

We got him!

Or have we. Now every man and their dog decided to look for things...

View attachment 47309

Well the proof is out there and so was Orville Nix. The guy filmed the shooting, and in his video you can see old uncle Ab' taking the footage the world knows so well. What was in Nix's film? Well after some photo giggerypokery...

View attachment 47311

Not the same person.

So two shooters and 4 men? Well we know thats not true as sound and video evidence doesnt support it. So which shooter was it? Or neither of them. Both these images have been debunked / rebunked / debunked again.

The good thing is you can believe what you want to believe, use what ever evidence you want to support it and someone will just find some branches, make them look like a person and say its the guy who killed kennedy.

It's a bit more difficult going back so far in history to a time when there was limited footage. These days everyone is recording digital data which means conspiracies are just as easy to debunk as to back them up.

 

[symyjym]

I can't help but think that it's a bit 'strange' or unlikely that 3 inexperienced pilots, who had only ever flown two-seaters or used simulations before that fateful day, managed to hit their targets so resoundingly with commercial airliners.

I do struggle with that.

I struggle with the controlled demolition and do not believe they would have had to bring them down as well as fly two planes into them.

The buildings started to collapse at the point of where both were hit and that would be very hard to set up.

I don't buy the 911 stuff.

 

[amexee]

I do NOT believe 9/11 was a conspiracy but:
4th plane on 9/11 I believe was shot down,
But there is another thing that is confusing about 9/11, if you ever get to speak with a pilot ask him/her if they could have hit the Pentagon with an airliner in exactly the right place having no real training other than a simulator. I have and they all say no, that's not to say it didn't happen but it must have been astonishingly lucky.

Pentagon is a massive building, If they aimed at the center, then it would look like crap flying.

Having seen the damage and almost total lack of aircraft parts at the Pentagon site, I would say that at face value it does not look like a plane crash, however if it was a missile then what happened to the other aircraft?

Difficult to dispute the twin towers, being hit, and collapsing .

 

[Sergei's Celebration]

It's a bit more difficult going back so far in history to a time when there was limited footage. These days everyone is recording digital data which means conspiracies are just as easy to debunk as to back them up.

Absolutely. I think the point I am trying to make is the more you look the more you find but it doesn't make what you find true.

In 1978 the world was convinced that 4 shots were fired that day...now it's widely accepted 3 were fired...exactly the number the original commission said. We have gone full circle in 50 years arriving back at the beginning. If you have spoken to a conspiracy theorist in the early 90's they would have spoken at length about acoustics indicating 4 shots thus a second shooter which means LHO wasn't allone. Now it's widely agreed it was three, all three came from the rifle found in the book building and poor old lee was just a screwed up kid.

Take the grand hotel bombing. Why does no one believe that was a Tory conspiracy? Isn't it a miracle that Thatcher wasn't killed but it was enough to shock the nation at a time when we needed to be distracted from the miners strikes and pour more resources against the IRA? Strange. Maybe McGee was a patsy of MI5? Why don't people believe that? Of the top of my head I have just come up with a CT theory that has some substance. That was easy and ita easy to say the WTC was a hoax or planned by the CIA and such like.

It took one man and a rifle to kill the president and it took 5 years of planning and some dedicated souls to kill thousands. But both were responsible not a dark an unidentified force.

 

[Luke93]

What about the members of NSC that live in a different time zone or work night shifts. The fact that you used "lol" means you must be a 14 year old girl.

'Luke' '(19)93' = teenaged girl? 'Lol'

 

[Norman Potting]

Watergate. Even the most powerful man in (arguably) the World couldn't arrange something as simple as getting some tapes wiped/destroyed!