WTC Conspiracy Thread (merged)

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Disaster, Feb 16, 2006.

  1. dixonmassey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,151
    "Anti-conspiracists insist that, unlike the rest of us, the rich
    and powerful do not act with deliberate intent." Michael Parenti
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kadark Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,724
    What a peculiar statement, John99. Building seven is of colossal relevance to the 9/11 investigation. Because building seven's status is a glaringly weak link in the "official" 9/11 story, it subsequently casts a formidable shadow of doubt over the entire explanation. What I'm trying to say is that if building seven's destruction proves to be a sloppy cover-up, then the same argument can be applied across-the-board to include the twin towers, the pentagon, and the mysterious vaporization of a supposed plane that crashed into some Pennsylvanian field. Why would building seven be induced to controlled demolition, anyway? Do you realize how much damage you could cause to both human life and nearby buildings by deliberately demolishing (without warning) a gigantic building amidst an ongoing crisis?

    Nice.

    Kadark the Colossus
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I'm a conspiracy theorist from way back, and there are a lot of interlocking conspiracies possible in this 9/11 stuff, but they are all concealed and proper attention to them distracted by this boring, repetitive, and thoroughly debunked crap about controlled demolition of the WTC buildings.

    Any time now we are going to see someone trot out the Fire Captain saying "pull it" on building 7.

    Look, a conspiracy has to make at least a little bit of sense. What has been essentially a coverup of the financing and pilot training and initial US military response, the involvement of close associates and long term friends of key US administration figures, the suspicious circumstances around the events jsut before the collapse of building 7, and so forth, these matters could use some attention not bled off and dispersed into "no steel building has ever collapsed before due to fire" la la land.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    So, Ice. Why don't you regale us with your theories? I'd love to hear them.
     
  8. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Now that's funny.
     
  9. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    It's situations just like this where skeptic/debunkers really start to look like morons.

    It's like they are just reading some "Official" report, done by someone with all the right credentials, so they blindly(literally) believe it. Then we hear them say things like - well who cares if they demo'd it. WTF?

    If they lie about WTC 7, it puts the whole 9/11 official story into mulligan mode. Do-over. Reinvestigate, and for fuck sake, not another "Rockefeller Commission". That's like getting Charlie Manson to investigate a cult murder.

    The explanations for Building 7's collapse are even more ridiculous than the magic bullet that zig-zag'd all over Kennedy and Connelly to FIT the official explanation of a single shooter. That was the "the official" story and that will stick no matter how ridiculous it gets.

    The U.S does not belong to the American people. It has been obvious since Friday, November 22, 1963 to the most casual observer, with their eyes OPEN. They in fact lost it to the Bank Act in '33.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Ganymede Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,322

    Here's a video that shows the lead engineer for the NIST denying that Molten steel was even present on the WTC site.

    http://911blogger.com/node/6104

    Now here's a video of Grounzero 6 weeks after the attacks.

    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/337510/molten_steel_found_weeks_after_wtc_towers_fell/


    Video of NYFD who describe seeing molten steel

    http://www.genwi.com/play/1810625
     
  11. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Another Kennedy nutter. Ok ...
     
  12. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Can we really just stop with all these threads? I mean, seriously. Did the stores everywhere suddenly run out of zoloft or something?
     
  13. Ganymede Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,322
    Count, whenever you doubt your own theories, I've noticed you resorted to name calling. Which isn't your style when you know you're right

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Ganymede Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,322
    If Bush and Cheney would of went on the record about 911 then you'd have a leg to stand on. By them refusing to go on the record is definitely an indication of guilt or deception of some sort. If you believe he refused to go on the record because he was innocent, then you're the one in need of zoloft!
     
  15. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    Okay so you believe that becuase someone refuses to address something as inanely stupid as these suggestions that it indicates guilt? Man, I am so glad you are not in charge of anything important.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It isn't ? He has a lot more self doubt than he lets on.

    Not the whole story.
     
  17. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    So when someone disagrees with you and mocks you, it's not because he honestly disagrees but because he's doubting himself thanks to the undoubtable truth of your arguments? Interesting expert analysis there gentlemen.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Is that supposed to be my analysis ?
     
  19. Ganymede Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,322
    He refused to go on the record when he met with the 911 commission. I can't recall any case where an innocent person refused to go on the record or testify.

    That's why Grand Juries detain people who refuse to tesitfy, because it gives them reason to the believe they're hiding something, innocent people are motivated to clear their names.



    A witness who refuses to testify without legal justification will be held in contempt of court, and is subject to incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury. A witness who testifies falsely may be separately prosecuted for perjury.

    http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

    So, if you were in charge the first thing you would do is change this law correct? Because it's insane to be suspicious of anyone who refuses to testify when called upon to do so?
     
  20. Ganymede Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,322
    I wasn't refering to what he said to me. I was referring to what he said to Nietz. So this invalidates your entire rant.
     
  21. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    No, exclusive to Ganymede. My mistake.

    My "rant" of one sentence? Replace you/your with x, it still applies and it's still ridiculous, along with the fact that you actually bothered to make it in the first place.

    I'm starting to see how you manage to convince yourself of whatever it is you want to believe, be it certain circumstances about 9/11, or that Obama's an atheist, amongst other things.
     
  22. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Barry Jenning's account contradicts parts of what Michael Hess said and he was with him. It certainly seems that he has his timeline confused.

    Jennings did not actually see bodies, he just said it felt like he was walking on people.

    No deaths have been attributed to WTC7. If there were bodies, why wouldn't anyone say anything? Perhaps the government killed all their families as well...

    This story is, at best, very flimsy evidence and is contradicted by a lot of much stronger evidence.
     
  23. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    The Kennedy assasination isn't a theory. It's a historical event with facts.

    That some people chose to doubt those facts, or parse over them in a vain attempt to make them appear less factual, is typical and foolish.

    Nothing substantial has ever been produced, not after 40-plus years of looking, to overturn the general conclusion that Oswald did it. Heck, even Norman Mailer, a liberal who went looking for a conspiracy, came to that conclusion.

    In other words, theories can only be taken seriously when the evidence of the theory is something more than cheap skepticism and doubt, because neither of the two are really evidence. The fact some people, like yourself, want to couch 9/11 in a history of similar "conspiracies" only adds to the unflattering flavor of dementia on display here.

    9/11 is probably the most documented and investigated event in human history. That a few kooks in a basement discovered the "truth" when multiple scientists, journalists and government agencies didn't not only flies in the face of common sense, it demands something more than doubt, vague conjectures, wild accusations and obstinate disbelief be offered to us.
     

Share This Page