< 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
 
   
 

It’s that time again…...911WTC…....just a question.

 
Dennis Campbell
 
Avatar
 
 
Dennis Campbell
Total Posts:  19789
Joined  20-07-2007
 
 
 
11 October 2016 10:53
 

Well there certainly is no doubt that you are an idiot.

Agree.  Anyway, as I understand it, these structures did not have a central supporting core but an external one.  But folks like this will never be convinced otherwise.  Those damned Black helicopters again…...

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9350
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
11 October 2016 11:43
 
bbearren - 11 October 2016 06:16 AM

A “plan” has a “goal”.  What was the goal?

Exactly.  Who benefits and how?

Conspiracy theories sound like a lot of fun, but end up being a complete waste of time.

 
911defender
 
Avatar
 
 
911defender
Total Posts:  65
Joined  07-10-2016
 
 
 
11 October 2016 12:28
 
Dennis Campbell - 11 October 2016 10:53 AM

Well there certainly is no doubt that you are an idiot.

Agree.  Anyway, as I understand it, these structures did not have a central supporting core but an external one.  But folks like this will never be convinced otherwise.  Those damned Black helicopters again…...

Really?.....is donald trump supplying your info? Check out the building specs…they are readily available.

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1742
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
11 October 2016 17:21
 
911defender - 07 October 2016 09:44 AM

but I believe the people who were sacrificed to start a war,...

Doesn’t that seem like an AWFUL lot of trouble to go to in order to start a war?? Why couldn’t they (our governmental perpetrators) bring down the twin towers the way they brought down building 7? Why go to the extra trouble of flying planes into the buildings and then detonating the explosives? Why not just bring the buildings down with controlled explosives and claim a second terrorist attack modeled after the 1993 WTC bombing?

BETTER YET, rather than plan a messy and complicated scheme to fly planes into buildings, why not just announce that Iraq has WMDs and are an imminent threat to the U.S.? That by itself would be justification, no? (as it turns out, that WAS the stated reason for going into Iraq) Why increase your chances of exposing the conspiracy due to unnecessary layers of complexity? And why kill thousands of our own innocent civilians in the process? After all, no such theatrics were necessary for the first gulf war. And we weren’t even threatened then. But an imminent threat to the U.S. by an already adversarial country would be quite easy to manufacture. 

Ron

 
911defender
 
Avatar
 
 
911defender
Total Posts:  65
Joined  07-10-2016
 
 
 
11 October 2016 22:33
 

Wmd’s were used as a lie…there weren’t any….oil, middle east puppet regime’s, and money….you can always follow the money…congress was not going to send soldiers without a real reason…911 gave them that reason…..If you dont believe war isnt used to perpetrate wealth and power you are living in denial.

 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9350
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
12 October 2016 02:59
 

We’re still waiting for the reason to go through all the trouble of 9/11, and we don’t want to hear speculation.  We want proof.

On second thought, forget it.  I’m not going to read the writings of another certifiable crackpot like the Holocaust denier who recently demonstrated his mental illness.

To the rest of the forum - do you get the feeling this is how Christianity started?  Paul came up with an idea but was laughed out of town for it, and because his over-inflated ego’s estimation of himself wouldn’t do an honest re-examination of his idea and himself he doubled-down on the crazy with bluster and bombast until he attracted a few weak minds to buy the story and spread it.

911defender, you will have to take a number and wait your turn.  Ahead the of you in line is:
Loch Ness monster
Big Foot
Yeti
UFOs
Chiropractic
Acupuncture
JFK assassination
Bermuda Triangle
Fountain of Youth
El Dorado
Fake moon landing
. . . and the mother of them all - Religion, complete with revelations, sightings, and prophecies.

It may be a wait so bring a lunch.

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1742
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
12 October 2016 03:18
 
911defender - 11 October 2016 10:33 PM

Wmd’s were used as a lie…there weren’t any….oil, middle east puppet regime’s, and money….you can always follow the money…congress was not going to send soldiers without a real reason…911 gave them that reason…..If you dont believe war isnt used to perpetrate wealth and power you are living in denial.

That’s not really answering my questions. Assuming this was an inside job, aren’t there much easier ways to go to war? Again,

1) Why couldn’t they (our governmental perpetrators) bring down the twin towers the way they brought down building 7? Why go to the extra trouble of flying planes into the buildings and then detonating the explosives? Why not just bring the buildings down with controlled explosives and claim a second terrorist attack modeled after the 1993 WTC bombing?

2) Given that in 1991 we went to war in the Persian gulf without an imminent threat to ourselves, why increase the chances of exposing the conspiracy due to unnecessary layers of complexity? Why not just announce that Iraq has WMDs and is threatening to use them against us? With our intervention of 1991 as a backdrop, this would seem perfectly plausible and realistic.

3) And why would the lone lie of WMDs not be acceptable, but the even more outrageous lie of SAUDI (not Iraqi)  box cutter-hijackers is acceptable??


Ron

 

 

[ Edited: 12 October 2016 03:22 by MrRon]
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8356
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
12 October 2016 10:44
 

“Conspiracy believers are the ultimate motivated skeptics. Their curse is that they apply this selective scrutiny not to the left or the right, but to the mainstream. They tell themselves that they’re the ones who see the lies, and the rest of us are sheep. But believing that everybody’s lying is just another kind of gullibility.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/conspiracy_theory_psychology_people_who_claim_to_know_the_truth_about_jfk.html

[ Edited: 12 October 2016 10:51 by unsmoked]
 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9350
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
12 October 2016 11:30
 

Thanks for posting that article, unsmoked. We’ll keep you around a while longer.

This stood out for me:

Clearly, susceptibility to conspiracy theories isn’t a matter of objectively evaluating evidence. It’s more about alienation. People who fall for such theories don’t trust the government or the media. They aim their scrutiny at the official narrative, not at the alternative explanations.

 
Throwdare
 
Avatar
 
 
Throwdare
Total Posts:  323
Joined  10-10-2016
 
 
 
12 October 2016 13:33
 
Skipshot - 12 October 2016 11:30 AM

Thanks for posting that article, unsmoked. We’ll keep you around a while longer.

This stood out for me:

Clearly, susceptibility to conspiracy theories isn’t a matter of objectively evaluating evidence. It’s more about alienation. People who fall for such theories don’t trust the government or the media. They aim their scrutiny at the official narrative, not at the alternative explanations.

No conspiracy theory, no lunatic approach. Just professsor Dr. Leroy Hulsey from the university of Alaska in his about 16 minutes long presentation on why building 7 did not collapse in free fall due to fire alone.

Dr. Leroy Hulsey Testifies before Panel of Attorneys :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf1ewgbq4fY

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1742
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
13 October 2016 03:18
 
Throwdare - 12 October 2016 01:33 PM

No conspiracy theory, no lunatic approach. Just professsor Dr. Leroy Hulsey from the university of Alaska in his about 16 minutes long presentation on why building 7 did not collapse in free fall due to fire alone.

Dr. Leroy Hulsey Testifies before Panel of Attorneys :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf1ewgbq4fY

Let’s agree for the moment that building 7 was brought down by controlled explosives and that 9/11 was an inside job. Why then, do you think that planes had to be flown into the twin towers (especially knowing that the ensuing fire from the planes would never be enough to collapse the towers)?

And if our aim was to go to war with Iraq, why would our concocted story be that Saudis and others were responsible, but not Iraqis???


Ron

 
Throwdare
 
Avatar
 
 
Throwdare
Total Posts:  323
Joined  10-10-2016
 
 
 
13 October 2016 06:11
 
MrRon - 13 October 2016 03:18 AM
Throwdare - 12 October 2016 01:33 PM

No conspiracy theory, no lunatic approach. Just professsor Dr. Leroy Hulsey from the university of Alaska in his about 16 minutes long presentation on why building 7 did not collapse in free fall due to fire alone.

Dr. Leroy Hulsey Testifies before Panel of Attorneys :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf1ewgbq4fY

Let’s agree for the moment that building 7 was brought down by controlled explosives and that 9/11 was an inside job. Why then, do you think that planes had to be flown into the twin towers (especially knowing that the ensuing fire from the planes would never be enough to collapse the towers)?

And if our aim was to go to war with Iraq, why would our concocted story be that Saudis and others were responsible, but not Iraqis???


Ron

I’m not interested in speculations about why and what for who did what regarding 9/11. I merely presented scientific evidence why building 7 did not collapse in free fall due to fire alone.

If you are interested in answers to your questions do the research. There is a lot of speculation out there on why and who did it for what reasons. I don’t deal in that.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17358
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
13 October 2016 08:28
 
Throwdare - 13 October 2016 06:11 AM
MrRon - 13 October 2016 03:18 AM
Throwdare - 12 October 2016 01:33 PM

No conspiracy theory, no lunatic approach. Just professsor Dr. Leroy Hulsey from the university of Alaska in his about 16 minutes long presentation on why building 7 did not collapse in free fall due to fire alone.

Dr. Leroy Hulsey Testifies before Panel of Attorneys :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf1ewgbq4fY

Let’s agree for the moment that building 7 was brought down by controlled explosives and that 9/11 was an inside job. Why then, do you think that planes had to be flown into the twin towers (especially knowing that the ensuing fire from the planes would never be enough to collapse the towers)?

And if our aim was to go to war with Iraq, why would our concocted story be that Saudis and others were responsible, but not Iraqis???


Ron

I’m not interested in speculations about why and what for who did what regarding 9/11. I merely presented scientific evidence why building 7 did not collapse in free fall due to fire alone.

If you are interested in answers to your questions do the research. There is a lot of speculation out there on why and who did it for what reasons. I don’t deal in that.

That wasn’t scientific evidence, it was scientific speculation, if he/you had actual evidence then this wouldn’t be a conspiracy theory. He even says at the end that he needs to do a lot more work to be able to present more then a feeling.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8356
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
13 October 2016 09:25
 
Skipshot - 12 October 2016 11:30 AM

Thanks for posting that article, unsmoked. We’ll keep you around a while longer.

Gulp.  Has there been talk of having me eliminated?  I’m not able to keep up with all the posts.

 
 
Dennis Campbell
 
Avatar
 
 
Dennis Campbell
Total Posts:  19789
Joined  20-07-2007
 
 
 
13 October 2016 10:15
 
unsmoked - 13 October 2016 09:25 AM
Skipshot - 12 October 2016 11:30 AM

Thanks for posting that article, unsmoked. We’ll keep you around a while longer.

Gulp.  Has there been talk of having me eliminated?  I’m not able to keep up with all the posts.

Nah, a lot of us objected on the grounds popcorn sales would decrease.  Not to worry.  Capitalism works.

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›