conspiracy theories

[wHATcOLOR]

[ohnoitsbonnie]

_
mr. sandall senior

[The Omega Concern]

O.J.,


you might be correct but I just took a shit and noticed it was bigger than you...so, i've got that going for me.

[wHATcOLOR]

heheh!!

[yo soy el mejor]

Originally Posted by wHATcOLOR

heheh!!

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 1 characters.

[Mariner]

Originally Posted by **********

The first place anyone should start when asking questions about 9/11 is WTC7 building.

If the twin towers were demolished by controlled explosives, they'd have to be done 'top-down' unlike a typical controlled demolition. WTC7 however has all of the makings of a typical controlled demolition. Take a look at the fucking video of it coming down:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWemhf8fZ2w

yeah. i'll buy wtcs 1 & 2 not being a controlled demolition, but every time i see footage of wtc7 going down it gives me the creeps. you hope that kind of thing is some sort of strange coincidence, but holy man does that look exactly like a controlled demolition. just yanked down perfectly.

[wHATcOLOR]

i am happy mariner posted in here, you can always count on something sensible from the man behind the ship's wheel

[smashingjj]

Originally Posted by **********

The first place anyone should start when asking questions about 9/11 is WTC7 building.

No steel structures have ever collapsed due to fire in history.
We accept that the twin towers fell due to steel weakened by fire after planes slammed into them - but WTC7 collapsed on its own for no reason 6 hours later and was never hit by a plane.

If the twin towers were demolished by controlled explosives, they'd have to be done 'top-down' unlike a typical controlled demolition. WTC7 however has all of the makings of a typical controlled demolition. Take a look at the fucking video of it coming down:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWemhf8fZ2w

Also, you'd think in the first collapses of steel structures in history, there would be a thorough investigation of all the evidence, i.e. tons of fucking steel and concrete. A housefire gets a more thorough investigation than WTC did - nearly all of the evidence was immediately shipped off or sold to other countries.

I think its strange that people will accept parts of the 'conspiracy theory' yet completely write-off other parts as if its ridiculous nonsense only a fool would believe. I think each person needs to ask themselves exactly what they believe happened that day. If any part of what you believe goes against the official story, which has been shoved down our throats since the very second it happened via the media, movies, television shows, etc. , ask yourself what the motivation would be behind obscuring the facts of that ONE tiny portion of the plot. Then take a look at the other pieces of what happened that day. Think about it logically. Whats the bigger conspiracy theory? That 19 extremists managed to slip through a number of lapses in security, fly around the country for over an hour unobstructed by our military, and fly jet planes into planned targets...or that perhaps the government knew it was coming and did everything they possibly could to ensure that it would happen and have a large enough impact to warrant basically any course of action the administration sees fit. It wouldn't be the first time the government had planned to kill its own civilians: Operation Northwoods.

www.911review.com is the best place to learn about all of facts that have been suppressed and explore critical analysis of the official version of events, as well as some of the flimsier alternate theories (such as stuff presented in Loose Change and , the worst of the bunch, In Plane Site which was actually produced by a right-wing talk radio show to provide misinformation to those interested in the real 9/11 truth movement)

thanks, great post

[Quiet CD]

Originally Posted by BlueStar

The towers did not collapse from the bottom.

read: http://worldtradecentertruth.com/vol...Department.pdf page 52 (read all of them)

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by **********

The first place anyone should start when asking questions about 9/11 is WTC7 building.

No steel structures have ever collapsed due to fire in history.
We accept that the twin towers fell due to steel weakened by fire after planes slammed into them - but WTC7 collapsed on its own for no reason 6 hours later and was never hit by a plane.

Its not like WTC7 was sitting pretty miles away from the scene. It got slammed with tons of debris from two very large buildings pretty much collapsing on top of it. It seems like most conspiracy nuts are so overly focused on the fire aspect that they forget about the fact that the only reason the fires caused collapses is because the buildings' structural integrities were compromised by being hit by planes and/or debris. Fire only = no colllapse. Fire + structure damage = collapse. I don't see how that's so hard to get one's head around.

I really don't understand how people can hang their hats almost solely on the reasoning that "it looked like a controlled demolition, so that's what it must have been." The circumstances of the collapse of the WTC towers and WTC7 are so different than anything that had happened before or since, but yet we have all these armchair engineers who base their opinion solely on the fact that they've seen video of a controlled demolition once. Unfortunately, we don't have any other videos of two huge skyscrapers collapsing next to a building to see what's "supposed" to happen in that situation. If we did, my guess is that it'd likely look a lot like what happened to WTC7.

Think about it logically. Whats the bigger conspiracy theory? That 19 extremists managed to slip through a number of lapses in security, fly around the country for over an hour unobstructed by our military, and fly jet planes into planned targets...or that perhaps the government knew it was coming and did everything they possibly could to ensure that it would happen and have a large enough impact to warrant basically any course of action the administration sees fit.

The second one. The first one is not a conspiracy theory at all.

I'm far from being a raging skeptic. I find plausibility in all sorts of wacky stuff (like Republican politics ), but 9/11 conspiracies (except for those concerning United 93 being shot down) get under my skin big time for some reason.

[smashingjj]

Originally Posted by Corganist

but 9/11 conspiracies (except for those concerning United 93 being shot down) get under my skin big time for some reason.

maybe because you embody the stereotypical right-wing yank?

[ChristHimself!]

Originally Posted by DeadOpera

i liked that movie conspiracy theory.

he's flying ... HE'S FLYING!!!

[The Omega Concern]

Debaser,

your skeptical about Flight 93 but not about the other planes? that's a bit inconsistent.

over a half-billion dollars was paid out on the Insurance of the Twin Towers. Only because it was deemed an 'accident'. It's on the record two-weeks prior to 9/11 all working personnel was not allowed in the Towers for 12 to 24 hours.

If you follow the money, that's always where the answers are...it's a labyrinth for sure, thus easy to cast all other conspiracy theories (other than the governments) aside as extremist.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by smashingjj

maybe because you embody the stereotypical right-wing yank?

Nah. That can't be it. I'm far from stereotypical.

[contusion]

what's a holocaust?

[contusion]

nothing six million jews can't handle.

[The Jesus]

I'm currently researching the Pakula Server Conspiracy.

[Orenthal James]

Originally Posted by contusion

nothing six million jews can't handle.