Are Conspiracy Theorists Really The Sane Ones?

by bravo75 189 replies
It really was the CIA, John Edwards and Richard Nixon who were involved!

It turns out the conspiracy theorists are right sometimes and maybe more often than thought.

For example, in the recent Navy Yard shooting attack by Aaron Alexis that killed 12 and injured eight, theories have been abundant, especially after Alexis reportedly heard voices.

Alexis apparently believed he was being harassed through microwave mind control, an assertion that in the mind of most would render him crazy.

But Wired.com pointed to a 2008 story on a declassified Pentagon report disclosing research on using microwave voice projection technology as weaponry.

The researchers at the Pentagon were reportedly looking for nonlethal weapons.

They concluded: “Application of the microwave hearing technology could facilitate a private message transmission. It may be useful to provide a disruptive condition to a person not aware of the technology. Not only might it be disruptive to the sense of hearing, it could be psychologically devastating if one suddenly heard ‘voices within one’s head.’”

Was it likely that Alexis was a target? No. Impossible? Also, apparently, no.

Skeptics have developed conspiracy theories regarding the Sandy Hook attack, space shuttle Columbia, 9/11 and many other major news events.

There even have been studies on the theorists and their theories.

Empirical data, without a doubt, affirms that the theorists are right, sometimes.

The Daily Caller reported two years ago that Watergate theorists were correct to suspect Richard Nixon. And yes, John Edwards was running around with Rielle Hunter. And it was the CIA working on an undersea project in the 1970s near Hawaii, not Howard Hughes, who only provided cover.

Challenging beliefs

According to studies, those who subscribe to conspiracy theories are less “married” to their theories than those who accept conventional wisdom.

One study showed that people who believe strongly in something are greatly offended when proven wrong, causing emotional stress that and in some cases can threaten self-image.

Pacific Standard magazine reported on such a study. It said that “because political beliefs are connected to deeply held values, information about politics can be very threatening to your self-image.”

“Imagine coming across information that contradicts everything you’ve ever believed about the efficacy of Medicare,” the magazine report said. “If you’re wrong about such an important policy, what else might you be wrong about? And if you’re wrong about a bunch of things, you’re obviously not as smart or as good or as worthwhile a person as you previously believed. These are painful thoughts, and so we evaluate information in ways that will help us to avoid them.”

Scientific American reported that those who are insecure about their own intellect are less likely to be able to accept information that doesn’t fit neatly into their worldview. The report made the case that people might actually prefer to hear intellectually light arguments for the simple reason that they can intellectualize and articulate them better than the one giving the weak argument, and this makes them feel smarter.

Psychological experts call this cognitive dissonance. Leon Festinger first proposed the concept in 1957. He said that there is a powerful motive to be consistent in one’s thoughts. This motive, he said, can be so compelling as to be disregarding of pertinent, even thought-altering information.

Festinger theorized people experience great anxiety when new information clashes with what they believe. Calling the tension cognitive dissonance, he elaborated on a deep, almost base instinct or motivation to eliminate the dissonance and make new information fit into one’s cognitive schema.

Might this mean that the conspiracy theorists, held in such disdain by polite society, have an intellectual self-confidence and mental stability to deal with the possibility of being wrong?

Lance deHaven-Smith, a professor and scientist at Florida State University, says quite possibly so.

In his book “Conspiracy Theory in America,” he says that history proves that the campaign to label those who hypothesize about large scale national events “conspiracy theorists” is a conspiracy itself.

He investigated how America’s founders warned in the Declaration of Independence of the possibility that the political elite will use their power to defame those who criticize their motives.



They said that simply by calling someone a conspiracy theorist, it doesn’t matter whether you have “actually claimed … a conspiracy exists, or whether you have simply raised an issue” that someone would rather not discuss at all. By labeling people with ideas different from convention, they “strategically exclude” dissent and new ideas from public consumption.

Clinical psychologist Dr. Dathan Paterno finds irony in such conspiracy research.

“Ultimately, these data raise more questions and only serve to breed cynicism – the primary ingredient of conspiracy theory. In the end, it seems that the conspiracy of conspiracy theories is really a conspiracy against the conspiracy by those who would conspire against conspirators.”

Are conspiracy theorists really the sane ones?

#off topic forum
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    This subject has been rehashed endlessly. Gov was actually the frrst entity to use the term widely - They needed the "label" to more effectively slip program the people against the idea. You can watch it at work. Any time the "conspiracy theory" is used to describe and idea - no matter how much evidence there is for the idea, people automatically do the *fingers in ears, la-la-la-la* thing.

    Still ya gotta admit - all conspiracy theories are not created equal - there's a far cry of difference between claiming a group of elites is out to overpower people for bucks, even if some die over it (check - WAR) - than the one that says they are lizards in drag.
    Signature

    Sal
    New PLR - Disaster prep duo report pkg: The Art of the Graceful Bug out, and Preparing Pets for a Disaster. - PM me for report details.
    Quality PLR Ebooks and Reports:
    Mind/Language - Weight, - Pet/Dog - Disaster - 2011 Earthquake Report - Hair Care

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8592464].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Cool Hand Luke
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8592527].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      There may be multiple reasons why someone believes in conspiracy theories. Being a bit unhinged or inadequately educated may only be a couple of possible reasons. However, they are otherwise intelligent and fully functional in other aspects of their lives. I think the majority come from a place where they want to feel special. Their lives are probably unsatisfactory on some level and conspiracies gives them some fulfillment. By being aware of the conspiracy theory they put themselves in a unique category of the enlightened or awakened.

      I've seen some who are just anti-social, others anti-authority enough to boldly question anything society or authority holds as true. Others are blinded by their own personal social and or political biases and simply are willing to swallow whatever fits into their ideology. Overall, it seems a common attribute is a lack of critical thinking skills. But believing something "kooky" isn't itself a cause for concern. Even the so-called "cognitive disorders" or dissonance does not necessarily fault someone for the inability to make a correct inference, or to judge among various forms of data.

      There is a recent study by Michael Wood and Karen Douglas at the University of Kent covering exactly this ground. It's called "What about Building 7? It's a social psychological study of 9/11 conspiracy theories. According to the study, results suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled "conspiracy theorists" appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events. It turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. Conspiracy theorists are sane, while government dupes are crazy and hostile.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8592595].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
        Originally Posted by myob View Post

        There may be multiple reasons why someone believes in conspiracy theories. Being a bit unhinged or inadequately educated may only be a couple of possible reasons. However, they are otherwise intelligent and fully functional in other aspects of their lives. I think the majority come from a place where they want to feel special. Their lives are probably unsatisfactory on some level and conspiracies gives them some fulfillment. By being aware of the conspiracy theory they put themselves in a unique category of the enlightened or awakened.

        I've seen some who are just anti-social, others anti-authority enough to boldly question anything society or authority holds as true. Others are blinded by their own personal social and or political biases and simply are willing to swallow whatever fits into their ideology. Overall, it seems a common attribute is a lack of critical thinking skills. But believing something "kooky" isn't itself a cause for concern. Even the so-called "cognitive disorders" or dissonance does not necessarily fault someone for the inability to make a correct inference, or to judge among various forms of data.

        There is a recent study by Michael Wood and Karen Douglas at the University of Kent covering exactly this ground. It's called "What about Building 7? It's a social psychological study of 9/11 conspiracy theories. According to the study, results suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled "conspiracy theorists" appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events. It turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. Conspiracy theorists are sane, while government dupes are crazy and hostile.

        It is also true that people believe in something because they have found substantial proof, and get p*** off by people who refuse to consider it!

        Or see a duck as l don't know what it is, or worse a pink elephant!

        Or dismiss something obvious that goes against mainstream thinking to the point that people could question their sanity!


        I believe that believing in something with little concrete proof, and going nuts if someone questions it, is a bit silly.

        But believing in something with substantial proof, while some dismiss it in any way they can, then the question is raised about the doubter trying so hard!


        Why are they trying so hard when the evidence is overwhelming?

        Or do they have a mental illness of some kind?

        Or is it just outright fear, that makes them dismiss the obvious?


        Shane
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8592790].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author DubDubDubDot
        Originally Posted by myob View Post

        There may be multiple reasons why someone believes in conspiracy theories. Being a bit unhinged or inadequately educated may only be a couple of possible reasons.
        The ability to form or process these theories often requires a greater understanding of history than the average person has.

        I think one or two of the the 9-11 theories have given the modern conspiracy theorist a bad name. But I don't consider followers of those theories to be your typical conspiracy theorist.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8594629].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
          Originally Posted by DubDubDubDot View Post

          The ability to form or process these theories often requires a greater understanding of history than the average person has.

          I think one or two of the the 9-11 theories have given the modern conspiracy theorist a bad name. But I don't consider followers of those theories to be your typical conspiracy theorist.
          I agree. There are some cases where the person had greater insight (or put together the pieces) better than most.

          Is it me, or do most people with a conspiracy theory, believe in a lot of them...not just one? Usually, I see that they are buying into a group of conspiracies.

          I may be wrong. My sample size is small.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8594996].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

            I agree. There are some cases where the person had greater insight (or put together the pieces) better than most.

            Is it me, or do most people with a conspiracy theory, believe in a lot of them...not just one? Usually, I see that they are buying into a group of conspiracies.

            I may be wrong. My sample size is small.
            Most conspiracy is going to include an "attack" from many angles. You can't completely control a whole population via one isolated act....and that is the point of conspiracies is to control something. The very meaning of the word "conspiracy" is that there are a lot of factions involved with a plan. If it's a single nut case trying to take over on their own, it's not a "conspiracy".

            Look at an old conspiracy that actually happened - we had World Bank and their fiat currency installed on us. People called me a nutcase for decades for saying that the FED is World Bank. Now it's generally known -- but in the beginning, our leaders lied their faces off about what was happening. It took a LOT of people from both gov, business, and news media to pull that one off - it wasn't just one or two guys making business plans. People who thought of the FED as it actually is were called everything but sane - that's how propaganda works and is the reason some of these "conspiracies" have been actually pulled off without much of a hitch.

            In my experience, there are usually solid reasons for a conspiracy theory to start - but the edges become extremely frayed. If you dig deep enough you will find where the bizarre fringe breaks off of the main "theory" - and at the core you will often find what is being done that started all the branch theories. The further the branch is from the core, the more likely it is to be paranoia, while at the core, you will normally find documented evidence of foul play.

            Just look at the lizard people in the White House conspiracy. That looks like it has nothing to do with much - but (and without too much digging), you will see it stems from the secrecy of the gov over area 51 and their complete denial of UFO's even when the evidence was overwhelming that there was a UFO (in saying that, I don't mean that a UFO is automatically from another planet, just that there was something that was not able to be identified, but was actually an aircraft and not stupidity such as "weather balloons" or "swamp gas". When the "official" explanations become as ludicrous, if not more so, than the idea of the event, there will eventually be some sort of attempt to explain what the hell went on, and since the officials gave idiotic explanations, the event will look like it's hooked to a larger scheme. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not.
            Signature

            Sal
            New PLR - Disaster prep duo report pkg: The Art of the Graceful Bug out, and Preparing Pets for a Disaster. - PM me for report details.
            Quality PLR Ebooks and Reports:
            Mind/Language - Weight, - Pet/Dog - Disaster - 2011 Earthquake Report - Hair Care

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8595129].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
              Originally Posted by HeySal View Post


              Just look at the lizard people in the White House conspiracy
              Is that a real thing? There are people that think that there are lizard people in the White House?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8595316].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                Is that a real thing? There are people that think that there are lizard people in the White House?
                Um......sigh. I'm thinking....NOT. That is some of the fringe paranoia. I've never seen any solid evidence for shape shifting lizards existing amongst our gov. I have seen a lot of trolls in there, though. I've also seen some butt ugly reps that definitely would shift their shape were they actually able to. That's a VERY primary consideration, too. If they were a lizard who could shape shift - why would they choose to look like some of them do? Holy cow. :rolleyes:
                Signature

                Sal
                New PLR - Disaster prep duo report pkg: The Art of the Graceful Bug out, and Preparing Pets for a Disaster. - PM me for report details.
                Quality PLR Ebooks and Reports:
                Mind/Language - Weight, - Pet/Dog - Disaster - 2011 Earthquake Report - Hair Care

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8595643].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                  Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                  Most conspiracy is going to include an "attack" from many angles. You can't completely control a whole population via one isolated act....and that is the point of conspiracies is to control something. The very meaning of the word "conspiracy" is that there are a lot of factions involved with a plan. If it's a single nut case trying to take over on their own, it's not a "conspiracy".

                  Look at an old conspiracy that actually happened - we had World Bank and their fiat currency installed on us. People called me a nutcase for decades for saying that the FED is World Bank. Now it's generally known -- but in the beginning, our leaders lied their faces off about what was happening. It took a LOT of people from both gov, business, and news media to pull that one off - it wasn't just one or two guys making business plans. People who thought of the FED as it actually is were called everything but sane - that's how propaganda works and is the reason some of these "conspiracies" have been actually pulled off without much of a hitch.

                  In my experience, there are usually solid reasons for a conspiracy theory to start - but the edges become extremely frayed. If you dig deep enough you will find where the bizarre fringe breaks off of the main "theory" - and at the core you will often find what is being done that started all the branch theories. The further the branch is from the core, the more likely it is to be paranoia, while at the core, you will normally find documented evidence of foul play.

                  Just look at the lizard people in the White House conspiracy. That looks like it has nothing to do with much - but (and without too much digging), you will see it stems from the secrecy of the gov over area 51 and their complete denial of UFO's even when the evidence was overwhelming that there was a UFO (in saying that, I don't mean that a UFO is automatically from another planet, just that there was something that was not able to be identified, but was actually an aircraft and not stupidity such as "weather balloons" or "swamp gas". When the "official" explanations become as ludicrous, if not more so, than the idea of the event, there will eventually be some sort of attempt to explain what the hell went on, and since the officials gave idiotic explanations, the event will look like it's hooked to a larger scheme. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not.

                  True, when you start to proclaim something as being true, but popular media or tv programs deny it, then the WF doubters, will come out of the woodwork and deny it til the cows come home.

                  Some to such a degree, you are wondering why they are so fanatical about it?


                  Then years later when the truth finally hits mainstream media, and you raise the issue again, this time with obvious evidence in your case, then the doubters, who tried so hard to convince you that you were wrong, disappear of the face of the planet.


                  I think the real issue that needs to be discussed is why do people blindly believe in popular media, namely tv, and papers, instead of doing some research and believing in the overwhelming evidence shown before them???????? :rolleyes:


                  I am sure that some studies would have already be done on this issue?


                  Shane
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8596031].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author bravo75
                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                Is that a real thing? There are people that think that there are lizard people in the White House?
                David Icke seems to think so.

                Code:
                David Icke
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8596266].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
                  Originally Posted by bravo75 View Post

                  David Icke seems to think so.
                  Good man, saved me the trouble. Icke has a lot of followers, too. Some probably follow him for the entertainment value, but still...
                  Signature

                  Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8596412].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mrozlat
    yes they are the sane ones... sometimes lol
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8592532].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    There were groups speaking about area 51! TODAY, it is FACT! CITICORP quietly and covertly, THROUGH THE NIGHTS, updated their iconic building that was DOOMED! Citigroup Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It is reported that LeMessurier agonized over how to deal with the problem. If he made it known publicly, he risked ruining his professional reputation. He approached Citicorp directly and advised them of the need to take swift remedial action, ultimately convincing the company to hire a crew of welders to repair the fragile building without informing the public, a task made easier by the press strike at that time.
    BTW in his defense, his original job was done well but GREATLY complicated by a last minute change in the ground space available.

    A US senator once made a crazy claim and IRONICALLY people TO THIS DAY claim he was crazy! Well, it turns out he was RIGHT! Even ED ASNER says he was like 90% right. Every now and then, ed asner has been more honest about it. It is clear that that senator, for all intents and purposes, WAS right! It affects us TO THIS DAY! There is evidence that even scifi authors over 100 years ago were involved!

    To say that all "conspiracy theories" are INSANE, etc... is to claim that conspiracies don't exist! YEAH RIGHT and NOBODY conspired to create the atomic bomb. It is a MYTH!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8593851].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Are conspiracy theorists insane?

      I think it depends on the reason for believing in the conspiracy. Is the overwhelming evidence pointing to the conspiracy?

      Just because someone is true, doesn't mean that their reasons for believing in that "right" facts aren't delusional.

      And if someone is wrong in their beliefs, it doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with their reasoning skills.

      We are all looking at different pieces of "evidence". We all have different areas of expertise, interests, and different access to information. We also start with completely different versions of reality. We all see through different lenses.

      And the word "conspiracy" can apply to many things. So asking "Are Conspiracy Theorists Really The Sane Ones?" is too broad for an answer.

      On the other hand, I sometimes hear ideas that you could term "conspiracies" that are bat sh1t crazy. That have no evidence, other than a very strong desire to believe.

      I listen to the reasons someone thinks a certain way. If the person shows no cohesive train of thought, it's difficult to give their ideas much credence...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8594224].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lcombs
    Here's the thing;

    We all get our information through the media.

    For example: How do we hear about the "liberal media"?
    Through the conservative media.

    So.... the question is;
    How do we decipher truth from friction?

    My liberal brother recently reprimanded me for "getting my news from right-wing, nutcase websites".

    I was simply sharing posts from HeySal.

    My son-in-law and his father are both hard-core liberals.
    And, they are both very intelligent.
    And, neither of them have a single ounce of common sense.

    Now, consider this:

    "W"'s election was dubious at best.
    Gore won the popular vote.
    But, the election was determined by an unprecidented dispute hinging on W's brother's electoral vote.
    Shortly after W's election 9/11 happened.
    9/11 took everybodies attention off the election and put it on Osama.
    There are many conspiracy theories about 9/11.
    Several points to consider;
    Too much confusion about how it could happen.
    a total breakdown in communications between agencys
    resulting in the worst tragedy on US soil ever.
    How did a jet get to the Pentagon?
    Particularly with the military on high alert.

    The result of 9/11?
    An excuse for the Gov't. to, step-by-step, nulify the Bill of Rights.

    Then, W invades Afghanistan in the name of eliminating Al Queda, The Taliban, and Bin Laden.
    Except, after scattering the Taliban, W decides to hang a left and go after So-damn Insane.

    Then, along comes O'bama.
    Again, a dubious election at best.

    I hope this doesn't shut this thread down.
    My intention is to simply state that we have no way of knowing
    the real truth.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8596079].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
      Originally Posted by lcombs View Post

      Here's the thing;

      We all get our information through the media.

      For example: How do we hear about the "liberal media"?
      Through the conservative media.

      So.... the question is;
      How do we decipher truth from friction?

      My liberal brother recently reprimanded me for "getting my news from right-wing, nutcase websites".

      I was simply sharing posts from HeySal.

      My son-in-law and his father are both hard-core liberals.
      And, they are both very intelligent.
      And, neither of them have a single ounce of common sense.

      Now, consider this:

      "W"'s election was dubious at best.
      Gore won the popular vote.
      But, the election was determined by an unprecidented dispute hinging on W's brother's electoral vote.
      Shortly after W's election 9/11 happened.
      9/11 took everybodies attention off the election and put it on Osama.
      There are many conspiracy theories about 9/11.
      Several points to consider;
      Too much confusion about how it could happen.
      a total breakdown in communications between agencys
      resulting in the worst tragedy on US soil ever.
      How did a jet get to the Pentagon?
      Particularly with the military on high alert.

      The result of 9/11?
      An excuse for the Gov't. to, step-by-step, nulify the Bill of Rights.

      Then, W invades Afghanistan in the name of eliminating Al Queda, The Taliban, and Bin Laden.
      Except, after scattering the Taliban, W decides to hang a left and go after So-damn Insane.

      Then, along comes O'bama.
      Again, a dubious election at best.

      I hope this doesn't shut this thread down.
      My intention is to simply state that we have no way of knowing
      the real truth.

      Well Icombs, they do make mistakes, and some who work for them who get tired of the constant bury the truth crap, do on occasion allow some of the evidence to appear.


      I won't believe in something if there is no compelling evidence to substantiate it.

      A blurry image of a UFO isn't enough to convince we. Top people in the US military and gov, who have seen these thing up close and will testify before congress pretty much do.

      Substantiated reports with video or images, make it a slam dunk, but only in the sence that they are unidentified.

      Although a UFO following the Apollo astranauts in the 1960,s has a good chance of being the genuine article.

      Pretty hard to fake back then!


      Shane
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8596180].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by lcombs View Post

      Here's the thing;

      We all get our information through the media.

      For example: How do we hear about the "liberal media"?
      Through the conservative media.

      So.... the question is;
      How do we decipher truth from friction?
      If a person once said he was from a certain place, or from an area where he must learn a certain thing(UNDER PENALTY OF DEATH!!!!!), or says energy should cost more, you can know those to be facts! Is the first one true? If not, why wasn't it corrected THEN? Is the second true? Why would they lie? If they told the truth, why would the other risk their LIVES? Was he telling the truth about the third? WHO CARES!?!?!? He was advocating the idea so SAME THING! Sometimes it is EASY to find the truth EVEN without the news media. There ARE quite a few videos, and documents. And many are SUPPORTED by those they speak AGAINST!!!!! Are you going to claim they are lying even though doing so claims that the OTHERS, you claim are telling the truth, are then lying? It is a lose/lose proposition.

      My liberal brother recently reprimanded me for "getting my news from right-wing, nutcase websites".
      I was accused of thinking things because I supposedly listened to RL! I listened to BP MORE, and first thought it over a decade BEFORE RL even STARTED!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8599314].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    See - I read a lot of the "conspiracy" info. I share it sometimes because people blast back opinions and share links that save me a lot of time researching.....even though I get accused of believing anything anyone says that's anti-establishment for doing so. It works for me.

    But in all the time I have been reading conspiracy info -- I always thought lizard people in gov was just a joke that statists like to use to denigrate questioners. Never heard of Icke until the WF. Haven't had time to read up on him now because there's too much real stuff going on, but definitely going to read up .......but with a predisposition that the guy is froot loops. Someone will have to stretch the logic a long way to change my mind on that one, LMAO.

    A lot of people believe media BS because they don't understand that it was made legal for the Press to lie to us in.....I think it was 2001. Might have been 00 or 02, but I believe it was 01.
    Signature

    Sal
    New PLR - Disaster prep duo report pkg: The Art of the Graceful Bug out, and Preparing Pets for a Disaster. - PM me for report details.
    Quality PLR Ebooks and Reports:
    Mind/Language - Weight, - Pet/Dog - Disaster - 2011 Earthquake Report - Hair Care

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8599028].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      See - I read a lot of the "conspiracy" info. I share it sometimes because people blast back opinions and share links that save me a lot of time researching.....even though I get accused of believing anything anyone says that's anti-establishment for doing so. It works for me.

      But in all the time I have been reading conspiracy info -- I always thought lizard people in gov was just a joke that statists like to use to denigrate questioners. Never heard of Icke until the WF. Haven't had time to read up on him now because there's too much real stuff going on, but definitely going to read up .......but with a predisposition that the guy is froot loops. Someone will have to stretch the logic a long way to change my mind on that one, LMAO.

      A lot of people believe media BS because they don't understand that it was made legal for the Press to lie to us in.....I think it was 2001. Might have been 00 or 02, but I believe it was 01.
      Wow, never heard of that one, any information about that online, Sal?


      Yep, the last thing the media reported that was controversial was the face on Mars!

      That was a good 10 or more years ago!

      And eventhough it could be a natural anomaly, the early probes taking a shot of something that was half a k, high and a few km's long, with recent NASA images showing a pile of rocks, probably a few hundred meters high at best, doesn't make sense?

      Either something flattened it, or you know.....:rolleyes:


      These days it is more like a joke than anything else. I find water on Mars, (or clear liquid for skeptics) nothing.

      I find substantial evidence for Mars having a blue sky, yet again zero, media coverage?


      And for skeptics, substantial evidence that Mars air pressure isn't at 30,000 feet at ground level, since a sky color is present. It would have a black sky, if the air pressure was at the 30,000 feet level.

      But yet again nothing on the news, or in papers or in mag,s, (apart from the conspiracy ones). It is frustrating, but that is the way it presently is.

      A newspaper would have to be on the point of bankruptcy, with zero hope of turning things around, to report this stuff.

      Because they would be committing suicide once they make an announcement!


      Shane
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8599235].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lcombs
    "We're all Bozos on this bus."
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8599362].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      See - I read a lot of the "conspiracy" info. I share it sometimes because people blast back opinions and share links that save me a lot of time researching.....even though I get accused of believing anything anyone says that's anti-establishment for doing so. It works for me.

      But in all the time I have been reading conspiracy info -- I always thought lizard people in gov was just a joke that statists like to use to denigrate questioners. Never heard of Icke until the WF. Haven't had time to read up on him now because there's too much real stuff going on, but definitely going to read up .......but with a predisposition that the guy is froot loops. Someone will have to stretch the logic a long way to change my mind on that one, LMAO.

      A lot of people believe media BS because they don't understand that it was made legal for the Press to lie to us in.....I think it was 2001. Might have been 00 or 02, but I believe it was 01.

      Don't worry Sal, found it. I couldn't believe this when l read it. So much for the press finding out the truth and reporting it no matter what.

      It is all suppression to make a buck crap, and what is more amazing is how some people blindly trust in this dodgy source of information on Conspiracy or controversial subjects!

      11. The Media Can Legally Lie – Top 25 of 2005


      Shane

      PS it was 2003, so you got close!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8599802].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

        Don't worry Sal, found it. I couldn't believe this when l read it. So much for the press finding out the truth and reporting it no matter what.

        It is all suppression to make a buck crap, and what is more amazing is how some people blindly trust in this dodgy source of information on Conspiracy or controversial subjects!

        11. The Media Can Legally Lie – Top 25 of 2005


        Shane

        PS it was 2003, so you got close!
        LOL - glad you found it. That happened before I was online and I didn't feel like looking for links to it.

        But then I would have had to if you hadn't found it because some OT troll would have zipped in and told me I had a screw loose for saying so. :rolleyes:
        Signature

        Sal
        New PLR - Disaster prep duo report pkg: The Art of the Graceful Bug out, and Preparing Pets for a Disaster. - PM me for report details.
        Quality PLR Ebooks and Reports:
        Mind/Language - Weight, - Pet/Dog - Disaster - 2011 Earthquake Report - Hair Care

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8599905].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          LOL - glad you found it. That happened before I was online and I didn't feel like looking for links to it.

          But then I would have had to if you hadn't found it because some OT troll would have zipped in and told me I had a screw loose for saying so. :rolleyes:

          Don't worry l have learnt if you find high quality evidence to back up your claims, (evidence that is very hard to dismiss) then the Trolls, usually disappear!


          Ostridges will want to keep their heads in the sand, even if it is quicksand!



          And an individual basing his contraversal beliefs on substantial evidence will always come out as being right in the end! :p


          Shane
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8600364].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    Some years back, according to a schizophrenic friend of mine, I worked for the RCMP and CIA on projects to control him with remotely directed radio waves. He had a detailed map of all my movements in different cities, with news clippings pinned all over it. It was very well documented. Almost had me convinced.
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8599842].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    Here's the problem with the conspiracy folks ... you can't prove a negative. No evidence doesn't equal evidence.

    Remember when Alex Jones and the rest of the loons talked about how 9/11 was an "inside job" and talked about the "suspicious bulge" on one of the planes, etc. Then Popular Mechanics put out a piece that basically debunked every single 9/11 conspiracy - and they did a hell of a job with it - then Jones and his ilk just create new conspiracies, or claim that the debunkers are "part of the conspiracy".

    Now, does that mean that once in a while they won't get it right? Of course not, it's a numbers game. Throw enough B.S. out there and eventually you'll be right about something. Then you use the one thing you were right about to lend credibility to some of the other things you say. And people say "Wow, he's a freakin prophet, he saw it before anyone else - I wonder what ELSE he's right about".

    It's a numbers game, and has made Jones a very wealthy man.

    Don't understand what I'm saying? Here's an exercise for you... prove that Santa Clause doesn't exist. Seriously. Prove it. You can't prove he doesn't exist - therefore ... he must.

    That's the logic of the conspiracy theorist.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8600389].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      Here's the problem with the conspiracy folks ... you can't prove a negative. No evidence doesn't equal evidence.

      Remember when Alex Jones and the rest of the loons talked about how 9/11 was an "inside job" and talked about the "suspicious bulge" on one of the planes, etc. Then Popular Mechanics put out a piece that basically debunked every single 9/11 conspiracy - and they did a hell of a job with it - then Jones and his ilk just create new conspiracies, or claim that the debunkers are "part of the conspiracy".

      Now, does that mean that once in a while they won't get it right? Of course not, it's a numbers game. Throw enough B.S. out there and eventually you'll be right about something. Then you use the one thing you were right about to lend credibility to some of the other things you say. And people say "Wow, he's a freakin prophet, he saw it before anyone else - I wonder what ELSE he's right about".

      It's a numbers game, and has made Jones a very wealthy man.

      Don't understand what I'm saying? Here's an exercise for you... prove that Santa Clause doesn't exist. Seriously. Prove it. You can't prove he doesn't exist - therefore ... he must.

      That's the logic of the conspiracy theorist.
      I watched a DVD called Zeitgeist, that (one section) proposed that 9/11 was an inside job. The arguments were well crafted and presented convincingly. It didn't convince me, but I saw how it could convince others.

      And then I read the Popular Mechanics article, and blew the idea away convincingly.

      I have limited experience with conspiracy theorists, but they seem to fall into two camps... the few that know things most don't...and the many that are illiterate, and their reasoning abilities don't make the ideas sound like nonsense to them.

      Sometimes it's very easy to tell the difference...but I try not to dismiss an idea just because it doesn't fit with my experience. I look for flaws in reasoning.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8600483].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      Here's the problem with the conspiracy folks ... you can't prove a negative. No evidence doesn't equal evidence.
      Well, in some cases occams razor indicates a conspiracy is more likely, but there often IS evidence!

      Remember when Alex Jones and the rest of the loons talked about how 9/11 was an "inside job" and talked about the "suspicious bulge" on one of the planes, etc. Then Popular Mechanics put out a piece that basically debunked every single 9/11 conspiracy - and they did a hell of a job with it
      OHHHHHHH? How did they explain the sequential collapse? I would LOVE to hear THAT explained!

      It's a numbers game, and has made Jones a very wealthy man.
      WHO KNOWS!?!?!?!? He made some crazy claims about a guy and eventually that SAME guy got fired for a lack of trust, etc... It IS kind of suspicious. Normally I would think BIG DEAL, but this guy wasn't exactly in the news. I figured USAMA would get blamed for 9/11, but that was ONLY because (CONSPIRACY THEORY ALERT....) I had a theory that 9/11 was some sort of conspiracy because could two people REALLY be that stupid? If they were, would they REALLY hit the same buildings? The first one, I figured "WHAT A MORON!"! The second one I figured "WOW, it is a PLANNED ATTACK". But DON'T mind me! I had NO proof! I think figured that USAMA would be blamed, because he was the most popular villain that might have been accused. I really wasn't surprised when the government later said the SAME thing! I wasn't even surprised about the attack because I saw a lot of border strife on israel for several weeks prior.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8600547].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ronrule
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        ...
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8600731].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

          What's your point? I simply made some valid points.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601239].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            What's your point? I simply made some valid points.

            Steve
            Valid points don't do any good in this matter, Steve. I saw a line up of over 100 military brass (brass - not privates), Architects, engineers, and physicists talk about why the "official" story is bullshit. I've seen millions of people decieved by disinformation of all sorts, not just about the tower. They see one piece of disinformation and deny anything anyone else says even if EVERY bit of conflicting evidence says otherwise.

            I'm thinking that people don't yet understand that 2 towers were "hit" and 3 fell. ???. Why does nobody seem to question that one?

            We'll never know the "facts" because no independent investigation was ALLOWED to be made. That says more to me than anything else said about it on either side. Won't ALLOW an independent investigation? When so many are refuting the "official" story? Yeah, that's really gonna line me up with the idea that the official story stands -- especially when 2 towers were hit and a third one fell.

            Go ahead guys - beam me up. I really don't care. I have questions and really am not that easily intimidated.
            Signature

            Sal
            New PLR - Disaster prep duo report pkg: The Art of the Graceful Bug out, and Preparing Pets for a Disaster. - PM me for report details.
            Quality PLR Ebooks and Reports:
            Mind/Language - Weight, - Pet/Dog - Disaster - 2011 Earthquake Report - Hair Care

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601314].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post



        OHHHHHHH? How did they explain the sequential collapse? I would LOVE to hear THAT explained!
        About a week after 9/11 I saw an interview with the architect that designed the towers. He specifically designed the buildings so that each floor would collapse on themselves. This is a smart, important feature to have in a 1000+ foot tall building, as you wouldn't want a building that tall to fall over sideways and destroy other buildings that were near by. The buildings came down EXACTLY as they were designed to.

        BTW, a week after 9/11 was BEFORE any conspiracy theories became public.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8600827].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          About a week after 9/11 I saw an interview with the architect that designed the towers. He specifically designed the buildings so that each floor would collapse on themselves. This is a smart, important feature to have in a 1000+ foot tall building, as you wouldn't want a building that tall to fall over sideways and destroy other buildings that were near by. The buildings came down EXACTLY as they were designed to.
          Wow, I wonder how it could know it would be coming down, and come down so properly with all that was going on. When they demolish a building, they have it timed precisely so each level reacts properly in sequence.

          So they DESIGNED it to collapse and didn't tell the people in there, etc? They KNEW it would come down, and didn't tell anyone? Why even bother sending up firemen? LONG after the building came down, people were musing at how a plane could do SO much damage. WHY?

          I ADMIT it is a nice feature, but I NEVER heard about it before and if it triggered at the wrong time.....

          As for the timing of conspiracy theories, some may have thought along those lines the moment they saw it. All I thought was "THIS might be retaliation for US support of israel which lately killed so many palestinians." and "They will likely blame this on Usama.". After that, I didn't really consider anything.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601237].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            Wow, I wonder how it could know it would be coming down,
            Steve; I'm fairly certain the building didn't know anything. I don't think the building was involved in a conspiracy. In fact, I'll go as far to say..I don't think the building was conscious at all.


            My question is..How did the jets know where to go? And how did they know the hijackers were in them? Serious questions, requiring serious answers.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601300].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

              Steve; I'm fairly certain the building didn't know anything. I don't think the building was involved in a conspiracy. In fact, I'll go as far to say..I don't think the building was conscious at all.


              My question is..How did the jets know where to go? And how did they know the hijackers were in them? Serious questions, requiring serious answers.
              If the building were set to collapse in a given way by breaking in sequence, they would have to "know". NOT in a conscious way, but through some kind of sensors! GOT IT!?!?!? It is the same sort of thing as a fire alarm that senses smoke, and sends out an alarm. The DIFFERENCE is that a fire alarm is often LOCAL, and if it goes off by accident, it is just a major nuisance. If a sensor to bring down the building were triggered by accident, t could kill tens of thousands and injure many more. I have SEEN big buildings come down. NONE were as big as the towers, but I have seen huge buildings come down, and seen several documentaries, and the hardware and changes to make the building come down were put in *****AFTER***** its destruction was planned and the building closed.

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601697].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author LarryC
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          About a week after 9/11 I saw an interview with the architect that designed the towers. He specifically designed the buildings so that each floor would collapse on themselves. This is a smart, important feature to have in a 1000+ foot tall building, as you wouldn't want a building that tall to fall over sideways and destroy other buildings that were near by. The buildings came down EXACTLY as they were designed to.

          BTW, a week after 9/11 was BEFORE any conspiracy theories became public.
          Strange, I don't ever recall hearing this -even from people trying to justify the conventional explanation of how the buildings collapsed. Not saying it isn't true, just that it isn't something that's often mentioned. This seems odd since it addresses one of the main points of the so-called conspiracy theorists.

          Either way, it doesn't explain how Building 7 collapsed despite the fact that it wasn't hit by a plane.
          Signature
          Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601302].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

            Strange, I don't ever recall hearing this -even from people trying to justify the conventional explanation of how the buildings collapsed. Not saying it isn't true, just that it isn't something that's often mentioned. This seems odd since it addresses one of the main points of the so-called conspiracy theorists.

            Either way, it doesn't explain how Building 7 collapsed despite the fact that it wasn't hit by a plane.
            I find it strange it hasn't been brought up more often too. One possibility is that, as mentioned above that it may be a design flaw in this case, the design may have been a liablity and the builders have been avoiding a major law suit.

            But, Bin Laden's confessions on video do explain the motives and who did it. Bush/Cheney didn't need to kill 3000 people to "justify" war. It could have been done with just one tower coming down, or in any number of other ways with fewer co-conspirators needed (AKA security leaks). They didn't need to kill anyone to get us into war with Iraq.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601338].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
              Originally Posted by LarryC View Post


              Either way, it doesn't explain how Building 7 collapsed despite the fact that it wasn't hit by a plane.
              Originally Posted by HeySal View Post


              I'm thinking that people don't yet understand that 2 towers were "hit" and 3 fell. ???. Why does nobody seem to question that one?

              We'll never know the "facts" because no independent investigation was ALLOWED to be made. That says more to me than anything else said about it on either side. Won't ALLOW an independent investigation? When so many are refuting the "official" story? Yeah, that's really gonna line me up with the idea that the official story stands -- especially when 2 towers were hit and a third one fell.

              .
              I know this is useless, but here goes anyway:
              World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601356].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                There are many scientists who have debunked Popular Mechanics explanations. Do your own research.

                The botton line is...and you can talk to ANY demolition specialist on the planet who you can get in touch with. ( I have with several)

                It is an absolute impossibility for a building to fall in its own footprint naturally. The taller the building the more impossible

                ...and the "Why not" is simple. As buildings fall...one chunk hits another and is deflected....every chunk of debri, no matter how small or how HEAVY, effects its surrounding debri even a fraction of a percent... So when a building falls naturally the debri eventually slides off or is dramatically misdirected, thus never ever in a billion years ever being able to hit its own footprint 100%

                Its the entire reason demolition was invented in the first place.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601389].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author myob
                  Originally Posted by Doran Peck View Post

                  It is an absolute impossibility for a building to fall in its own footprint naturally. The taller the building the more impossible.
                  Actually quite the opposite is true. The taller the building, the more impossible it is for other forces to offset inertia. As designed, the towers did initially survive the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fires led to other steel failures hours later. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure. When these failed, inertial force compounding with the weight above point of impact, was straight down. None of the floor joists downward could support or change the path of the accelerating weight from above the point of initial collapse.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601540].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by myob View Post

                    Actually quite the opposite is true. The taller the building, the more impossible it is for other forces to offset inertia. As designed, the towers did initially survive the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fires led to other steel failures hours later. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure. When these failed, inertial force compounding with the weight above point of impact, was straight down. None of the floor joists downward could support or change the path of the accelerating weight from above the point of initial collapse.
                    There HAS to be support around the perimeter of a building, or it is DOOMED! The taller the building, the stronger the support must be. HECK, people look in AWE at the pyramids. GUESS WHAT! The outer support stays the same, while the weight decreases. On DOMED buildings, the higher levels push the lower levels out, and the walls support it. MOST airports are built in an impractical way, since they are HUGE, so they use the SAME techniques! Look at the detroit airport for example. They built like a second floor that pulls against the walls while they have a support that also supplies pressure against the roof. It is a way to avoid the type of situation my house has. My house has a column that supports a main support supporting the first floor, since I have a basement, and the floor above that are supported by LOAD BEARING walls.

                    All this means that your explanation is GARBAGE! The building would have collapsed FAR earlier! And those load bearing walls need to be broken PRECISELY to cause a smooth fall. People think there was a lot of damage? NO WAY! People talk about 2 or 3 buildings being hurt, and NOT 10 or more!

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601739].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author myob
                      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                      There HAS to be support around the perimeter of a building, or it is DOOMED! The taller the building, the stronger the support must be. HECK, people look in AWE at the pyramids. GUESS WHAT! The outer support stays the same, while the weight decreases. On DOMED buildings, the higher levels push the lower levels out, and the walls support it. MOST airports are built in an impractical way, since they are HUGE, so they use the SAME techniques! Look at the detroit airport for example. They built like a second floor that pulls against the walls while they have a support that also supplies pressure against the roof. It is a way to avoid the type of situation my house has. My house has a column that supports a main support supporting the first floor, since I have a basement, and the floor above that are supported by LOAD BEARING walls.

                      All this means that your explanation is GARBAGE! The building would have collapsed FAR earlier! And those load bearing walls need to be broken PRECISELY to cause a smooth fall. People think there was a lot of damage? NO WAY! People talk about 2 or 3 buildings being hurt, and NOT 10 or more!

                      Steve
                      It is quite clear you have no idea how the WT towers were designed. So let me try explaining this again. Each tower was 64 meters square, standing 411 meters above street level and 21 meters below grade. The perimeter support included 244 steel columns. Inside there was a large 27 meter × 40 meter central steel core, which was designed to support the weight of the towers. Each floor was joined to the support columns by angle clips, and were designed to support approximately 1,300 tons beyond its own weight. Even though the impact of 200-ton planes severed some of the perimeter support columns, that was nowhere near enough to bring the towers down. A major feature of the architectural design was specifically to withstand such aircraft collisions.

                      However, the buildings were not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fires. An estimated 60,000 pounds of fuel was ignited when the Boeing 767s crashed into the towers. Structural engineers believe that the intense heat caused the steel supports to lose at least half their strength and to deform. Within a couple of hours, this weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall. The weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a nearly free-fall domino collapse. The perimeter support columns and force of inertia effectively directed the collapse inward, almost within the footprint of the towers.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8602196].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                        Hmmmm, l have a feeling that the dancing bananas will make an appearance!


                        Shane :rolleyes:
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8602485].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                        Originally Posted by myob View Post

                        It is quite clear you have no idea how the WT towers were designed. So let me try explaining this again. Each tower was 64 meters square, standing 411 meters above street level and 21 meters below grade. The perimeter support included 244 steel columns. Inside there was a large 27 meter × 40 meter central steel core, which was designed to support the weight of the towers. Each floor was joined to the support columns by angle clips, and were designed to support approximately 1,300 tons beyond its own weight. Even though the impact of 200-ton planes severed some of the perimeter support columns, that was nowhere near enough to bring the towers down. A major feature of the architectural design was specifically to withstand such aircraft collisions.

                        However, the buildings were not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fires. An estimated 60,000 pounds of fuel was ignited when the Boeing 767s crashed into the towers. Structural engineers believe that the intense heat caused the steel supports to lose at least half their strength and to deform. Within a couple of hours, this weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall. The weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a nearly free-fall domino collapse. The perimeter support columns and force of inertia effectively directed the collapse inward, almost within the footprint of the towers.
                        If you think about the outer columns having the strength to direct the collapse and yet fail to simultaneously fall with it, it seems like there are problems with that theory.

                        Steve
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8602852].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                          When it comes to 9/11 I think the real conspiracy lies in why they attacked us.
                          For at least 60 years we have been trying to manipulate the governments and people in the Middle East, We've helped install people into power who where no more then puppets doing our biding at the expense of the citizens of those countries.
                          I believe 9/11 was blow back to our actions in the Middle East.
                          What was the reason given to us for 9/11?
                          Was any blame given to our policies over there?
                          Signature

                          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                          Getting old ain't for sissy's
                          As you are I was, as I am you will be
                          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8602885].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author myob
                          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                          If you think about the outer columns having the strength to direct the collapse and yet fail to simultaneously fall with it, it seems like there are problems with that theory.

                          Steve
                          I was quite involved in this niche years ago - deja vu 2006 all over again LOL! But I'm sure you'll see from the building diagrams from Tim (mine are long gone by now) that the central core of the WT towers contained all of the heavy machinery, equipment, electrical systems, elevators, stairwells, etc. The floors were suspended by angle joints and joists between the central column and 244 outer perimeter columns. The area containing offices between the central column and outer perimeter was comparatively empty space.

                          For about 1.5 to 2 hours after impact, the surviving outer support columns maintained their integrity long enough to direct the collapsing floors downward. The columns themselves simultaneously collapsed inward along with the floor by floor collapse. There was substantial debris that went through the breeched outer columns. WT7 was struck by the debris pattern from WT1. In the aftermath there was no evidence of any assisting explosives such as the often claimed inside job using thermite or some "secret" super-duper nano thermite. :rolleyes:
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8603413].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ronrule
                  Originally Posted by Doran Peck View Post

                  There are many scientists who have debunked Popular Mechanics explanations. Do your own research.
                  Ah yes, the "Do your own research" response - one of the most common among conspiracy theorists.

                  Translation: I can't dispute anything you're saying, so I'll ask you to search the Internet to debunk your claim yourself.

                  :rolleyes:
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601545].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author AeroBuilders
                    The INFOWARS.COM Team (not OWNED by the corporate controlled media oligarchy) is on the TIP OF THE SPEAR again!

                    » Missing Nuke Investigation: Special Report Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
                    Signature

                    Seeking JV partners for Forex Trading products

                    Forex Trader & Trade System Builder / Health & Wellness Expert / Sport Aircraft Builder

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601550].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

                    Ah yes, the "Do your own research" response - one of the most common among conspiracy theorists.

                    Translation: I can't dispute anything you're saying, so I'll ask you to search the Internet to debunk your claim yourself.

                    :rolleyes:
                    OK! If they debunk it, you don't believe. YOU don't want to debunk it.

                    Are you simply PAID to "believe"?

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601749].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ronrule
                      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                      OK! If they debunk it, you don't believe. YOU don't want to debunk it.

                      Are you simply PAID to "believe"?

                      Steve
                      It's been debunked, quite thoroughly. Are you paid to believe it wasn't?
                      Signature
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601766].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                        Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

                        This was explained pretty well in the popular mechanics article.
                        Originally Posted by rondo View Post

                        No it was not really explained at all.
                        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                        OK! If they debunk it, you don't believe. YOU don't want to debunk it.

                        Are you simply PAID to "believe"?

                        Steve
                        Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

                        It's been debunked, quite thoroughly. Are you paid to believe it wasn't?
                        Can you say Mexican Standoff?



                        Terra
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601779].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                          Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                          Can you say Mexican Standoff?

                          Terra
                          Terra; It's not a standoff at all. At least one side is completely wrong.
                          And that doesn't mean the other side is right, either.

                          It strikes me as funny that I don't have any direct knowledge of which side I'm on.

                          The part that fascinates me, is that the wrong side is united in their point of view. It interests me that uninformed people can come to the same conclusion.

                          Why does there usually end up being two sides? Not three...hundreds...but two. That's actually the part that interests me.

                          Do you guys realize how funny these arguments are to people not on this forum?
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8602826].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                            Terra; It's not a standoff at all. At least one side is completely wrong.
                            And that doesn't mean the other side is right, either.

                            It strikes me as funny that I don't have any direct knowledge of which side I'm on.

                            The part that fascinates me, is that the wrong side is united in their point of view. It interests me that uninformed people can come to the same conclusion.

                            Why does there usually end up being two sides? Not three...hundreds...but two. That's actually the part that interests me.

                            Do you guys realize how funny these arguments are to people not on this forum?
                            It's not a Mexican Standoff?

                            I thought the definition of a Mexican standoff was stalemate: a dispute or argument that cannot be won.

                            I don't see how this one can be won, personally.

                            By the way for what it's worth, I don't know which side I'm standing on either. I'll just say that I'm open for facts from both sides, but lean towards not an inside government job for reasons not even touched on here in the forum either. I may be able to be persuaded to one side or the other with very compelling evidence but I've not really delved in that deeply to either side's points and counterpoints.

                            Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                            Fixed that. Did that to a link yesterday, too. I think someone is switching the links when I post them..........they don't want anyone to know what I'm trying to share..........

                            It's a conspiracy, I tell ya! LMAO

                            Terra
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8603145].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                              Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                              It's not a Mexican Standoff?

                              I thought the definition of a Mexican standoff was stalemate: a dispute or argument that cannot be won.

                              I don't see how this one can be won, personally.

                              By the way for what it's worth, I don't know which side I'm standing on either. I'll just say that I'm open for facts from both sides, but lean towards not an inside government job. I may be able to be persuaded to one side or the other with very compelling evidence but I've not really delved in that deeply to either side's points and counterpoints.



                              It's a conspiracy, I tell ya! LMAO

                              Terra
                              Actually, a mexican standoff is when you have something that will adversely affect, or even kill another and you can't use it because another could similarly attack you, and the others can't use what they have against you for the same reasons. The safest avenue, at least regarding the immediate matter, is to protect the status quo and just go home.

                              Steve
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8603200].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                                Actually, a mexican standoff is when you have something that will adversely affect, or even kill another and you can't use it because another could similarly attack you, and the others can't use what they have against you for the same reasons. The safest avenue, at least regarding the immediate matter, is to protect the status quo and just go home.

                                Steve
                                Hmmm,

                                Somebody needs to tell Dictionary.com that.

                                Terra
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8603565].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                  Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                  Hmmm,

                                  Somebody needs to tell Dictionary.com that.

                                  Terra
                                  Well, one can argue that MANY cases can't be won by a given side. I always took a mexican standoff to be a bit more severe. In MOVIES a mexican standoff is even a bit MORE specific than what I mentioned, with the good guys holding a key person at bay while supporters of the bad guy holds THEM at bay so nobody dares shoot because they THEMSELVES would be shot. It is basically a small scale MAD! Russia wouldn't attack Denmark, because many would attack them. We won't attack russia because they would attack us. They won't attack us directly because we would attack them, etc....

                                  HERE is a site supporting MY definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_standoff

                                  Steve
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8603592].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                    Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                                    Well, one can argue that MANY cases can't be won by a given side. I always took a mexican standoff to be a bit more severe. In MOVIES a mexican standoff is even a bit MORE specific than what I mentioned, with the good guys holding a key person at bay while supporters of the bad guy holds THEM at bay so nobody dares shoot because they THEMSELVES would be shot. It is basically a small scale MAD! Russia wouldn't attack Denmark, because many would attack them. We won't attack russia because they would attack us. They won't attack us directly because we would attack them, etc....

                                    HERE is a site supporting MY definition: Mexican standoff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                                    Steve
                                    Haha!

                                    Now that makes me wonder what people think when I tell them that hubby and I are engaged in a Mexican Standoff.

                                    Terra
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8603606].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                              Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                              It's not a Mexican Standoff?

                              I thought the definition of a Mexican standoff was stalemate: a dispute or argument that cannot be won.

                              I don't see how this one can be won, personally.
                              Terra
                              Lovely Angelic Terra;

                              You are right. The argument will never be won or lost on this Forum. But there is no real debate outside the Forum.

                              Both sides can't be right, and there are real facts involved.

                              To me, outrageous claims need extraordinary proof. And I just don't see it.

                              Although, I've heard a couple arguments (not here) that are compelling. At least they stop my train of thought and make me consider them. That's pretty rare for a complete non-believer like me.

                              Originally Posted by myob View Post

                              For example, we have seen a demonstration of the remarkable grip of Alex Jones et al right here in this thread.
                              First thing you've said (that I can remember) that I may disagree with. Can people really constantly spew nonsense without believing it?

                              I've had a few friends say that I should start a religious cult. This is years ago. I actually thought about it for an hour or two. No. For two reasons. I would quickly hate the people that joined me, because they would well...be people I wouldn't want to be around.

                              And constantly saying something that you know to be a lie? I would die a little every day, I think.

                              So I think these people (like Jones) believe what they say, although they may also be great at marketing.

                              It's very hard for me to accept, but I know that you can be highly intelligent (Brilliant even) and yet believe in the most extraordinarily bizarre things.
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8603768].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author socialentry
                            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                            Why does there usually end up being two sides? Not three...hundreds...but two. That's actually the part that interests me.
                            1-Victory usually goes to the bigger bataillon. Between neophytes, swamping the opposition with replies gives a very clear advantage as a long debate relies on each side's capacity to research and digest information (or at least it should).

                            2-Debating on the internet has more to do with ego, then it does with the issues at hand.

                            3-And largely because WF is US-centric (or at least the majority of regulars seem to come from blue collar/American background), there's not that much diversity of viewpoints. The mainstream of WF is heavily tilted either toward so-called US "liberals" or libertarians.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8603174].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author myob
                            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                            Why does there usually end up being two sides? Not three...hundreds...but two. That's actually the part that interests me.
                            There are a lot more dynamics in CT than you realize. It's not a simple dichotomy of two sides, rather a tapestry of intersecting emotions, beliefs, suspicion, shades of reason, etc often woven by masters of marketing and deception. Within a society handicapped by ignorance in the sciences and engineering, and coupled with deficiencies in reasoning and critical thinking skills, it should be no wonder masses of people are continually falling for conspiracy theory exploitation.

                            There are literally hundreds of conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001, but our collective intellectual prowess collapsed long before then. Those who are feeding and capitalizing on ignorance and the widespread CT mindset are indeed quite sane, and perhaps arguably brilliant geniuses of marketing. For example, we have seen a demonstration of the remarkable grip of Alex Jones et al right here in this thread.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8603505].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author LarryC
                              Originally Posted by myob View Post

                              There are a lot more dynamics in CT than you realize. It's not a simple dichotomy of two sides, rather a tapestry of intersecting emotions, beliefs, suspicion, shades of reason, etc often woven by masters of marketing and deception. Within a society handicapped by ignorance in the sciences and engineering, and coupled with deficiencies in reasoning and critical thinking skills, it should be no wonder masses of people are continually falling for conspiracy theory exploitation.

                              There are literally hundreds of conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001, but our collective intellectual prowess collapsed long before then. Those who are feeding and capitalizing on ignorance and the widespread CT mindset are indeed quite sane, and perhaps arguably brilliant geniuses of marketing. For example, we have seen a demonstration of the remarkable grip of Alex Jones et al right here in this thread.
                              Are we to believe that the government and mainstream media aren't "masters of deception and marketing?" As I see it, they are the real pros. While some truthers and conspiracy theorists may make a few thousand dollars off these issues, the big players make billions, if not trillions.

                              Some people critique "conspiracy theories" from this elitist mindset that comes from a place of trusting everything they learned in college and from establishment intellectuals. They can then look down on the ignorant masses who are gullible enough to believe in these conspiracy theories. It's easy to point at Alex Jones as an example of a populist, rabble rousing and possibly exploitative character who appeals to the ingnorant. His rants are full of hype and he does make his share of predictions that turn out to be false. His persona seems to be based on professional wrestling antics.

                              It's interesting how people who are "anti-conspiracy" tend to focus almost solely on Jones when criticizing these theories. Sometimes they'll also bring up David Icke, who is also an easy target because of his farfetched theories about reptilians and other things.

                              But what about all the low key Truthers who question the official story? Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth has a large membership of knowledgeable people who are constantly contributing evidence on this topic. It's easier to keep criticizing Alex Jones than to look at all the evidence.

                              Notice also how easily satisfied the anti-Truthers are when it comes to believing the official story. It's enough to find a few passports amidst the wreckage and a dubious Bin Laden "confession" video.
                              Signature
                              Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8603736].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                                Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

                                Are we to believe that the government and mainstream media aren't "masters of deception and marketing?" As I see it, they are the real pros. While some truthers and conspiracy theorists may make a few thousand dollars off these issues, the big players make billions, if not trillions.

                                Some people critique "conspiracy theories" from this elitist mindset that comes from a place of trusting everything they learned in college and from establishment intellectuals. They can then look down on the ignorant masses who are gullible enough to believe in these conspiracy theories. It's easy to point at Alex Jones as an example of a populist, rabble rousing and possibly exploitative character who appeals to the ingnorant. His rants are full of hype and he does make his share of predictions that turn out to be false. His persona seems to be based on professional wrestling antics.

                                It's interesting how people who are "anti-conspiracy" tend to focus almost solely on Jones when criticizing these theories. Sometimes they'll also bring up David Icke, who is also an easy target because of his farfetched theories about reptilians and other things.

                                But what about all the low key Truthers who question the official story? Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth has a large membership of knowledgeable people who are constantly contributing evidence on this topic. It's easier to keep criticizing Alex Jones than to look at all the evidence.

                                Notice also how easily satisfied the anti-Truthers are when it comes to believing the official story. It's enough to find a few passports amidst the wreckage and a dubious Bin Laden "confession" video.
                                I love how you add adjective "dubious". It's one that could be used freely for every fact. And speaking of facts, it wasn't a single video by Bin Laden, it was numerous, all released by Al Jazeera.

                                Between seeing the planes crash into the Twin Towers, as well as the confessions, the burden of proof is on you to prove that certain individuals are guilty of the mass murder of close to 3000 people. Dubious theories aren't good enough.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8603798].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                  Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                                  I love how you add adjective "dubious". It's one that could be used freely for every fact. And speaking of facts, it wasn't a single video by Bin Laden, it was numerous, all released by Al Jazeera.

                                  Between seeing the planes crash into the Twin Towers, as well as the confessions, the burden of proof is on you to prove that certain individuals are guilty of the mass murder of close to 3000 people. Dubious theories aren't good enough.
                                  Yes. I couldn't have made it clearer myself. The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists.

                                  To be fair, that doesn't automatically make them wrong. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. At least for me.

                                  Guys; The reason buildings collapse inward is because they are almost completely hollow. Almost all of a building is empty space. The connective floors and interior walls have weight that pulls the (better supported) outer wall in towards them when the floors collapse.

                                  The only time a tall building would fall over (or outward) is if the damage were on the lowest floors on one side. Then the whole building would tip over.

                                  But from the top down? Buildings have a strong tendency to implode.

                                  Ever watch a house made out of cards fall over? They almost always implode, because the first thing to fall is the interior, the part with the least support.

                                  Ta Da!
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8603831].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                                    Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                    Yes. I couldn't have made it clearer myself. The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists.

                                    To be fair, that doesn't automatically make them wrong. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. At least for me.
                                    I agree. And as a poker player whose money depended on putting players "on hands", I assume that any conspiracy of this magnitude would require very smart people.

                                    But if the goal was to provoke war with Al Queda and the Taliban in Afghanastan, which has few-to-no natural resources, surely there was a better plan than this one?

                                    Why not just have our Air Force shoot the planes out of the sky? You wouldn't need to kill nearly as many people or wire the Towers with explosives, and our military would come off as heros.

                                    Taking down the Towers just doesn't make sense to me. But, the WTC attack by Bin Laden does at least make sense.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8603854].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                                      I agree. And as a poker player whose money depended on putting players "on hands", I assume that any conspiracy of this magnitude would require very smart people.

                                      But if the goal was to provoke war with Al Queda and the Taliban in Afghanastan, which has few-to-no natural resources, surely there was a better plan than this one?

                                      Why not just have our Air Force shoot the planes out of the sky? You wouldn't need to kill nearly as many people or wire the Towers with explosives, and our military would come off as heros.

                                      Taking down the Towers just doesn't make sense to me. But, the WTC attack by Bin Laden does at least make sense.
                                      A 2006 USGS report showed Afghanistan to have oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids.
                                      Also other reports showed that the country has huge amounts of lithium, copper, gold, coal, iron ore and other minerals.
                                      It's location has been of importance in the Middle East and Asia for centuries.
                                      Controlling Afghanistan would be an important move for the US.

                                      But I don't think our govt. was behind 9/11, directly.
                                      We already know Bin Liden and his freedom fighters where armed and trained by our CIA in Afghanistan when Russia invaded the country. It is very possible that the training prepared them to be able to plain something like 9/11.
                                      Signature

                                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8604062].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                        A 2006 USGS report showed Afghanistan to have oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids.
                                        Also other reports showed that the country has huge amounts of lithium, copper, gold, coal, iron ore and other minerals.
                                        It's location has been of importance in the Middle East and Asia for centuries.
                                        Controlling Afghanistan would be an important move for the US.

                                        But I don't think our govt. was behind 9/11, directly.
                                        We already know Bin Liden and his freedom fighters where armed and trained by our CIA in Afghanistan when Russia invaded the country. It is very possible that the training prepared them to be able to plain something like 9/11.
                                        RE: Afghanistan resources.

                                        You are extremely right about their resources. They are severely rich in them. Gary Bowsersox (a.k.a. The Gem Hunter) is over there teaching those people to mine - with funds from USaid. Gary talked to me about doing an article in my newsletter years back about it.

                                        I saw something a few years back which suggested that the US only found out about those resources since the war. Not even starting to be true. Bowsersox was there working with the minerals/gem/metals mining WAY before the war ever started. They knew full well the value of Afghanistan before any conflict.
                                        Signature

                                        Sal
                                        New PLR - Disaster prep duo report pkg: The Art of the Graceful Bug out, and Preparing Pets for a Disaster. - PM me for report details.
                                        Quality PLR Ebooks and Reports:
                                        Mind/Language - Weight, - Pet/Dog - Disaster - 2011 Earthquake Report - Hair Care

                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8604411].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                                          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                                          RE: Afghanistan resources.

                                          You are extremely right about their resources. They are severely rich in them. Gary Bowsersox (a.k.a. The Gem Hunter) is over there teaching those people to mine - with funds from USaid. Gary talked to me about doing an article in my newsletter years back about it.

                                          I saw something a few years back which suggested that the US only found out about those resources since the war. Not even starting to be true. Bowsersox was there working with the minerals/gem/metals mining WAY before the war ever started. They knew full well the value of Afghanistan before any conflict.
                                          Yes there's resorces, I mispoke. However, as you wrote yourself, we didn't know about them until after the war had started. Therefore, you post backs up my opinion about resources not being a motive for the war.

                                          But no, there isn't any infrastructure to get to the resources, let alone process them on an industrial level. There's no bridges, no roads, no rail roads, no factories, no ports. No nothing.

                                          And, there's no political system to deal with. You need to go into the most rugged land in the world, then negotiate with each and every tribal leader to build any kind of infrastucture before you can have any chance to profit.
                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8604824].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                                            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                                            Yes there's resorces, I mispoke. However, as you wrote yourself, we didn't know about them until after the war had started. Therefore, you post backs up my opinion about resources not being a motive for the war.

                                            But no, there isn't any infrastructure to get to the resources, let alone process them on an industrial level. There's no bridges, no roads, no rail roads, no factories, no ports. No nothing.

                                            And, there's no political system to deal with. You need to go into the most rugged land in the world, then negotiate with each and every tribal leader to build any kind of infrastucture before you can have any chance to profit.

                                            Read my post again, Kurt - they knew way before the war.

                                            I haven't kept up on the info about that war. Serious - I don't know enough to make any other comment on it -- but WE KNEW there were mega millions in resources sitting there before any war was ever declared there. Draw your own conclusions to that based on what you may know about the war. Just a fact I'm giving out.
                                            Signature

                                            Sal
                                            New PLR - Disaster prep duo report pkg: The Art of the Graceful Bug out, and Preparing Pets for a Disaster. - PM me for report details.
                                            Quality PLR Ebooks and Reports:
                                            Mind/Language - Weight, - Pet/Dog - Disaster - 2011 Earthquake Report - Hair Care

                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8605078].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author LarryC
                                  Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                                  I love how you add adjective "dubious". It's one that could be used freely for every fact. And speaking of facts, it wasn't a single video by Bin Laden, it was numerous, all released by Al Jazeera.

                                  Between seeing the planes crash into the Twin Towers, as well as the confessions, the burden of proof is on you to prove that certain individuals are guilty of the mass murder of close to 3000 people. Dubious theories aren't good enough.
                                  As for the Bin Laden videos being "dubious," that wasn't an arbitrary adjective added for effect. If you study the videos, you can find real discrepancies in Bin Laden's appearance over the years.

                                  As for the burden of proof issue, I don't buy that. From a legal point of view, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt. In this case, that would mean proving that Bin Laden or Al Qeida was responsible.

                                  My "conspiracy theory" is, I fully admit, not any kind of explanation of what happened. In that respect, calling it a theory at all is a bit misleading. I prefer to say I'm highly skeptical of the official story. As many Truthers have pointed out, when you really look at it, the official story itself is a conspiracy theory.

                                  We could just as easily say that the burden of proof is on people who believe that a group of incompetent pilots (according to witnesses who were familiar with their flight training) hijacked planes with box cutters and managed to elude the most sophisticated technology in the world until it was too late.

                                  This burden of proof demand assumes that the mainstream explanation of any event should be accepted unless evidence to the contrary is presented. Some may think that's reasonable, but I don't. There are too many established cases of governments and media lying outright when they have a reason to do so.

                                  The whole burden of proof argument isn't really relevant here anyway. This isn't a court, only one of a zillion online debates on the subject. When you're dealing with a complex topic that's very difficult to prove either way, saying one side has the burden of proof is just a tactic to make your side seem more legitimate.
                                  Signature
                                  Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8603882].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                    Originally Posted by LarryC View Post


                                    ...hijacked planes with box cutters...
                                    Box cutters are just a different kind of knife really. They can cut a throat enough to kill someone very easily.
                                    Signature
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8603938].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                                    Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

                                    As for the Bin Laden videos being "dubious," that wasn't an arbitrary adjective added for effect. If you study the videos, you can find real discrepancies in Bin Laden's appearance over the years.

                                    As for the burden of proof issue, I don't buy that. From a legal point of view, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt. In this case, that would mean proving that Bin Laden or Al Qeida was responsible.

                                    My "conspiracy theory" is, I fully admit, not any kind of explanation of what happened. In that respect, calling it a theory at all is a bit misleading. I prefer to say I'm highly skeptical of the official story. As many Truthers have pointed out, when you really look at it, the official story itself is a conspiracy theory.

                                    We could just as easily say that the burden of proof is on people who believe that a group of incompetent pilots (according to witnesses who were familiar with their flight training) hijacked planes with box cutters and managed to elude the most sophisticated technology in the world until it was too late.

                                    This burden of proof demand assumes that the mainstream explanation of any event should be accepted unless evidence to the contrary is presented. Some may think that's reasonable, but I don't. There are too many established cases of governments and media lying outright when they have a reason to do so.

                                    The whole burden of proof argument isn't really relevant here anyway. This isn't a court, only one of a zillion online debates on the subject. When you're dealing with a complex topic that's very difficult to prove either way, saying one side has the burden of proof is just a tactic to make your side seem more legitimate.
                                    Yes, the burdon of proof is entirely relevant here. I wasn't talking about a court room I was talking about what you and the other guessers need to do to convince me and other reasonable people.

                                    I'll repeat: I saw planes crash into two buildings. I saw video confessions of Bin Laden taking credit for the crashes. I also know Bin Laden had motive and opportunity and was behind a previous attempt to attack the WTC. As a matter of fact, Bin Laden's paln of drawing the US into war and draining the US economy is exactly what happened.

                                    To change my opinion, I need more than "what ifs", wild guesses and random opinions because bad things have happened before.

                                    I would be more inclined to believe some type of cover-up to deflect blame by the US gov for lack of security, but I'll need some solid proof that the US gov was behind the attacks. This plan simply wasn't needed to get us into war, if that was the motive.

                                    Not to mention, speculating and blaming mass murder on anyone should take more than guess-work.

                                    By the way, are you willing to let someone sneak up on you from behind with a box cutter and then say it wasn't an effective strategy?

                                    As far as prosecutors needing burdon of proof, you may want to explain that to Bin Laden. I'm sure he will appreciate your opinion.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8604002].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author LarryC
                                      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                                      Yes, the burdon of proof is entirely relevant here. I wasn't talking about a court room I was talking about what you and the other guessers need to do to convince me and other reasonable people.

                                      I'll repeat: I saw planes crash into two buildings. I saw video confessions of Bin Laden taking credit for the crashes. I also know Bin Laden had motive and opportunity and was behind a previous attempt to attack the WTC. As a matter of fact, Bin Laden's paln of drawing the US into war and draining the US economy is exactly what happened.

                                      To change my opinion, I need more than "what ifs", wild guesses and random opinions because bad things have happened before.

                                      I would be more inclined to believe some type of cover-up to deflect blame by the US gov for lack of security, but I'll need some solid proof that the US gov was behind the attacks. This plan simply wasn't needed to get us into war, if that was the motive.

                                      Not to mention, speculating and blaming mass murder on anyone should take more than guess-work.

                                      By the way, are you willing to let someone sneak up on you from behind with a box cutter and then say it wasn't an effective strategy?

                                      As far as prosecutors needing burdon of proof, you may want to explain that to Bin Laden. I'm sure he will appreciate your opinion.
                                      First of all, I doubt anything I say will convince you and that's not really my concern. You saw planes hit the WTC -so did everyone. No one is debating that. Well there is one theory that it was all holograms, but most Truthers aren't saying that and I'm certainly not.

                                      You saw a video Bin Laden confession. So what? There are many explanations for that. He could have been coerced. He might have wanted to take responsibility for it whether he really was or not. Or the whole thing could have been faked. That isn't really so farfetched. It's not hard to get a Middle Eastern guy with a beard, put him in front of a camera and have him say he's Bin Laden.

                                      "I'll need some solid proof that the US gov was behind the attacks. " Again, I didn't make that claim. It could be a certain faction within the government. It could have been that faction working as partners with Al Queida. I'm skeptical about the official story.

                                      To go back to a courtroom analogy, if you are accusing someone of murder it's not up to the defense to prove who really did it. They only have to cast reasonable doubt that the defendant is responsible. I have no special motive to defend Bin Laden or Middle Eastern terrorists. I just doubt their ability to pull off something of that magnitude, especially with so many blatant holes in the script (and I use that word deliberately).

                                      Finally, your comment about box cutters is just silly. I know they are deadly weapons and I wouldn't want to get attacked by someone with one. But that doesn't make it the ideal weapon to pull off the biggest terrorist attack in history.
                                      Signature
                                      Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8604108].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                        Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

                                        Finally, your comment about box cutters is just silly. I know they are deadly weapons and I wouldn't want to get attacked by someone with one. But that doesn't make it the ideal weapon to pull off the biggest terrorist attack in history.
                                        Apparently, there are a LOT of people that don't realize that there was a policy created in the 70s that said that pilots were supposed to COMPLY with hijackers!!!!!! WHY? Because the hijackers would divert the plane to fly somewhere for free, or someplace forbidden, and the passengers would eventually get flown back to the US safely! They have the SAME sort of policy to comply with bank robbers!

                                        THAT is why you can rob a bank with a note, and you could hijack a plane with a minor weapon.

                                        Steve
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8604185].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                                        Typical CT rhetoric...

                                        Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

                                        First of all, I doubt anything I say will convince you and that's not really my concern. You saw planes hit the WTC -so did everyone. No one is debating that. Well there is one theory that it was all holograms, but most Truthers aren't saying that and I'm certainly not.

                                        You saw a video Bin Laden confession. So what? There are many explanations for that. He could have been coerced. He might have wanted to take responsibility for it whether he really was or not. Or the whole thing could have been faked. That isn't really so farfetched. It's not hard to get a Middle Eastern guy with a beard, put him in front of a camera and have him say he's Bin Laden.
                                        Explanations and accusations are not proof. Bin Laden may have wanted a lot of things. He said he wanted to bring the US into war.

                                        Just denying things and coming up with other ideas is not evidence and it's not proof.

                                        "I'll need some solid proof that the US gov was behind the attacks. " Again, I didn't make that claim. It could be a certain faction within the government. It could have been that faction working as partners with Al Queida. I'm skeptical about the official story.
                                        Other than suspicion, what facts have you based your opinion on?

                                        To go back to a courtroom analogy, if you are accusing someone of murder it's not up to the defense to prove who really did it. They only have to cast reasonable doubt that the defendant is responsible. I have no special motive to defend Bin Laden or Middle Eastern terrorists. I just doubt their ability to pull off something of that magnitude, especially with so many blatant holes in the script (and I use that word deliberately).
                                        I wasn't talking about a court room. You did. And other than your feelings, what proof do you have?

                                        inally, your comment about box cutters is just silly. I know they are deadly weapons and I wouldn't want to get attacked by someone with one. But that doesn't make it the ideal weapon to pull off the biggest terrorist attack in history.
                                        Again, just more "feelings" an no proof. They don't have to be the "ideal" weapon to have been used. People on the planes with cell phones told their friends and families that the hijackers had box cutters. What's your evidence, other than suspicion?

                                        And, box cutters may have been an ideal weapon, because they had to get weapons onboard in the first place. It may have been tough sneaking guns, knives and swords onto the planes, even before TSA. It may have been much easier for them to smuggle box cutters onboard than the other weapons. But what we do know from the phone conversations is, they used box cutter, unless you have any other actual evidence to offer.

                                        BTW, do you consider fertilizer and gasoline to be the "ideal" weapon for the second largest terrorist attack on American soil?
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8604843].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author DubDubDubDot
                                      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                                      This plan simply wasn't needed to get us into war, if that was the motive.
                                      It was the only way to assure support for war. We would be in a full blown great depression right now had it not been for entering into those two wars.
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8604211].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                        Originally Posted by DubDubDubDot View Post

                                        It was the only way to assure support for war. We would be in a full blown great depression right now had it not been for entering into those two wars.
                                        Yeah right. The war was such a boom for the economy. :/

                                        Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

                                        But that doesn't make it the ideal weapon to pull off the biggest terrorist attack in history.
                                        Well, the actual weapons were the planes. I believe the only reference to the box cutters was one passenger on one plane who called her husband and mentioned box cutters.
                                        Signature
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8604419].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                        Originally Posted by DubDubDubDot View Post

                                        It was the only way to assure support for war. We would be in a full blown great depression right now had it not been for entering into those two wars.
                                        ACTUALLY, the disaster that happened around 1999 seemed to be getting BETTER until 9/11/2001!

                                        The ONLY part of the "economy" it helped was some public sector stuff. Hey, look at AIRLINES!

                                        Large pilots? MANY LAYED OFF!
                                        Small pilots? SOME LAYED OFF, but those hired REPLACED the large ones!
                                        FLIGHTS? CUT BACK!
                                        INCOME? DROPPED!
                                        SECURITY? FIRED!!!!!!!!!
                                        Replaced by a LOT of new WORTHLESS EVER CHANGING LAWS, TSA, DHS, ETC....
                                        Down for WEEKS, and some airports were curtailed or shut down!

                                        Steve
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8604676].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                                    Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

                                    As for the Bin Laden videos being "dubious," that wasn't an arbitrary adjective added for effect. If you study the videos, you can find real discrepancies in Bin Laden's appearance over the years.

                                    As for the burden of proof issue, I don't buy that. From a legal point of view, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt. In this case, that would mean proving that Bin Laden or Al Qeida was responsible.

                                    My "conspiracy theory" is, I fully admit, not any kind of explanation of what happened. In that respect, calling it a theory at all is a bit misleading. I prefer to say I'm highly skeptical of the official story. As many Truthers have pointed out, when you really look at it, the official story itself is a conspiracy theory.

                                    We could just as easily say that the burden of proof is on people who believe that a group of incompetent pilots (according to witnesses who were familiar with their flight training) hijacked planes with box cutters and managed to elude the most sophisticated technology in the world until it was too late.

                                    This burden of proof demand assumes that the mainstream explanation of any event should be accepted unless evidence to the contrary is presented. Some may think that's reasonable, but I don't. There are too many established cases of governments and media lying outright when they have a reason to do so.

                                    The whole burden of proof argument isn't really relevant here anyway. This isn't a court, only one of a zillion online debates on the subject. When you're dealing with a complex topic that's very difficult to prove either way, saying one side has the burden of proof is just a tactic to make your side seem more legitimate.
                                    Exactly. That is why an independent investigation was called for - it would have PROVEN the facts so nobody would be able to propagandize their own side. And as I pointed out before - the people calling for investigation are pretty high level people. If any of us think we're smarter than this whole list of people who are calling for investigation - that just proves us pig-headed and stupid in our own right. You can sit here and call other forum members all the names you want to - but are YOU enough of an expert to argue with THESE experts?

                                    Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

                                    It's funny that those who "know" the official story is right will call anyone else that thinks anything else "paranoid" or "crazy", etc - when all the person has said is they don't buy the official story and want an investigation. Good grief, get grounded.
                                    Signature

                                    Sal
                                    New PLR - Disaster prep duo report pkg: The Art of the Graceful Bug out, and Preparing Pets for a Disaster. - PM me for report details.
                                    Quality PLR Ebooks and Reports:
                                    Mind/Language - Weight, - Pet/Dog - Disaster - 2011 Earthquake Report - Hair Care

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8604050].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author myob
                                Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

                                Are we to believe that the government and mainstream media aren't "masters of deception and marketing?" As I see it, they are the real pros. While some truthers and conspiracy theorists may make a few thousand dollars off these issues, the big players make billions, if not trillions.
                                I certainly agree that the government and mainstream media are the quintessential masters of deception and marketing. A long running example of the US government's prowess in that department is the UFO hoax.

                                Since the 1940's, the government along with perhaps the inadvertent participation of mass media, have been using this elaborate scheme to conceal the research and development of the most advanced military aircraft the world has ever known.

                                This hoax was so successful that through generations of UFO and alien "believers" it has now become mainstream. Official denials of the existence of exotic and high performance aircraft (along with a few staged UFO crashes such as Roswell) made ET visitors to Earth a formidable cover story for covert military research in advanced aerodynamics.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8604761].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                                  Originally Posted by myob View Post

                                  I certainly agree that the government and mainstream media are the quintessential masters of deception and marketing. A long running example of the US government's prowess in that department is the UFO hoax.

                                  Since the 1940's, the government along with perhaps the inadvertent participation of mass media, have been using this elaborate scheme to conceal the research and development of the most advanced military aircraft the world has ever known.

                                  This hoax was so successful that through generations of UFO and alien "believers" it has now become mainstream. Official denials of the existence of exotic and high performance aircraft (along with a few staged UFO crashes such as Roswell) made ET visitors to Earth a formidable cover story for covert military research in advanced aerodynamics.
                                  And even this sophisticated deception has witnesses and "squealers"...but my knowledge of the situation is that Area 51 used the alien deception to test nuclear weapons and be able to hide from things like the EPAand other environmental laws in the name of "national security".

                                  Because of the security issues, they didn't have to consider things like disposing of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, etc. So, they pretend that Area 51 is about "aliens", while they are really doing some nuclear testing the public would never approve of.

                                  This is a possible conspiracy, with actual evidence and witenesses, worth looking in to...
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8604852].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                        Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

                        It's been debunked, quite thoroughly. Are you paid to believe it wasn't?
                        ODD that nobody will explain. Further down, you and Kurt speak of melting and failure. I never said ANYTHING about that! I don't care if the objects are made out of thin ice, or titanium. Failure almost *******NEVER******* happens the same way! It is a GIVEN! Go ahead! HEAT glass! Expose it to extreme cold. WHY does it crack? WHY do incandescent lights almost always fail when you turn them on? Because the expansion and contraction don't happen at the same rates. If trees are hit, they always fall a different way.

                        There is a REASON why demolitions of buildings aren't done by just anyone, and are planned, etc... And the taller the building is, the more important it becomes. I mean a 1 story might give you a 10' potential error with even basic demo techniques. a 2 story is potentially OVER 20', a 3 story OVER 30' and as the stories go up there may be additional drifting, etc... which adds to it. When they demo a tall building, they have each floor go in sequence so the upper floors fall on the lower as they themselves are falling down. If the ENTIRE floor at each level falls at once in the proper sequence, it will leave a relatively even and collected pile of rubble.

                        Steve
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8602034].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author LarryC
                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                I've seen that. "Fire alone brought down the building" they say. Curious how seldom we see fires causing a building to collapse in that manner. In fact, I can't think of a single other instance of this happening.

                To me, believing this explanation is more farfetched than almost any "conspiracy theory" on the subject.
                Signature
                Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601393].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                Nope, nadda. I want REAL info on where the plane went at the pentagon - enough heat to melt everything but a terrorists ID? Okay, then. Two planes - THREE towers. Okay then. Hundreds of professionals in relevant fields calling for an investigation because official statements don't make sense to them. ONE article in popular mechanics. Whatever. If it's all so innocent - why block an investigation when it would resolve the issue to EVERYONE'S satisfaction? Sorry. That smells.

                I'm not gonna say "Bush did it". I'm just saying something is wrong with the story.
                Signature

                Sal
                New PLR - Disaster prep duo report pkg: The Art of the Graceful Bug out, and Preparing Pets for a Disaster. - PM me for report details.
                Quality PLR Ebooks and Reports:
                Mind/Language - Weight, - Pet/Dog - Disaster - 2011 Earthquake Report - Hair Care

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601409].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

              I find it strange it hasn't been brought up more often too.
              It has been on one of the top anti-truther sites for years, even with diagrams showing the construction of the towers. I'll see if I can dig it up and post it here.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8603274].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          About a week after 9/11 I saw an interview with the architect that designed the towers. He specifically designed the buildings so that each floor would collapse on themselves. This is a smart, important feature to have in a 1000+ foot tall building, as you wouldn't want a building that tall to fall over sideways and destroy other buildings that were near by. The buildings came down EXACTLY as they were designed to.

          BTW, a week after 9/11 was BEFORE any conspiracy theories became public.
          Doesn't mean diddly. He would have also had to design the breaking and crumbling point of everything in the building so to control the movement off all of the debri.

          They try to design cars to not harm any passengers when they crash too...Hows that working out?.... designing something to happen a certain way in the midst of chaos, and how it actually plays out are never the same, in anything.

          For mainstream America...its too easy to influence thinking...an article in a magazine sounds logical....its just enough to nudge your questioning mind back into the official story, but unfortunately stops the brain from further questioning.

          There is a reason, THOUSANDS of professional firefighters, engineers, scientists, airline pilots, retired military, and others are raising their voices and questioning the official story behind 911....because each of them in their own field of expertise, sees things that don't jive.

          I'd give what they have to say more respect than some opinions in a magazine.

          I also seriously doubt many Americans at all have even read the official commission report.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601504].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    Alex Jones is nuttier than a squirrel turd.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601559].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author AeroBuilders
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      Alex Jones is nuttier than a squirrel turd.
      Darn...too bad he "CALLS IT" dead on like you will NEVER SEE in the corporate controlled mainstream media.....




      Signature

      Seeking JV partners for Forex Trading products

      Forex Trader & Trade System Builder / Health & Wellness Expert / Sport Aircraft Builder

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601568].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      Ah yes, the "Do your own research" response - one of the most common among conspiracy theorists.

      Translation: I can't dispute anything you're saying, so I'll ask you to search the Internet to debunk your claim yourself.

      :rolleyes:
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      Alex Jones is nuttier than a squirrel turd.
      And a typical response from someone who doesn't buy into any plausibility of any conspiracy theory
      "I'll just call them a nut job, that will prove they're wrong"
      Just as common as "do your own research".
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601577].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Cool Hand Luke
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        And a typical response from someone who doesn't buy into any plausibility of any conspiracy theory
        "I'll just call them a nut job, that will prove they're wrong"
        Just as common as "do your own research".
        No, Alex Jones is literally crazy and delusional. If you didn't want so badly to believe in his conspiratard theories, you'd be able to do a bit of research (which you seem to scoff at) and find out that he has a looooooooong history of being dead wrong about theories, predictions, etc.

        Since you don't want to do the research, let's review some of Alex Jones' predictions:

        *Bank runs in February 2009.
        *9/11-scale terror attacks in 2010.
        *50% of the U.S. population will be killed in a bio-weapons attack in 2009.
        *16 year-old soldiers will enforce nationwide martial law by 2012.
        *A major terror attack will occur in the U.S. by the end of summer 2009 (oh, and it’s a false flag).
        *The U.S. will go to war with Russia in 2009.
        *Texas stores are being looted and National Guard troops are moving into Austin right this minute (December 31, 1999).
        *The UN will announce the presence of ET intelligence during 2009 to stage a NWO takeover.
        *The U.S. dollar will be devalued by 50% by 2012.

        etc, etc, etc

        The guy is a nutjob.

        Originally Posted by AeroBuilders View Post

        Tell that to DrudgeReport.com (who lists INFOWARS stories week after week now) who is the NUMBER ONE most visited online news source!
        The Drudge Report is not even CLOSE to being the "number one most visited online news source". Besides even if it was, what does one man's (Matt Drudge) opinion have to do with whether or not Alex Jones is remotely credible or sane?

        Originally Posted by AeroBuilders View Post

        In the end, the BEST PRODUCTS do get traction and sell! The CITIZENRY is ready for the alternative media...the INFORMED "GET IT" now.
        No, Alex Jones and his ilk prey on the weak-minded and those who have a need to feel like they're special and they "know" something the rest of us don't.

        That's why as Alex Jones calls the rest of us "sheep" for not believing in ridiculous conspiracy theories backed by no credible evidence, his followers eat up every word he says as gospel truth despite the complete lack of factual evidence or rational thinking in what he says.

        Irony at it's finest.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607601].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author AeroBuilders
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      Alex Jones is nuttier than a squirrel turd.
      Darn, you are out in left field again......the TOP "OBL HUNTER" Lt Col Anthony Shaffer (and thousands of other US Military personnel) continue to share "intel" with Alex Jones! I am very glad there are still some REAL PATRIOTS left in this country..........






      Signature

      Seeking JV partners for Forex Trading products

      Forex Trader & Trade System Builder / Health & Wellness Expert / Sport Aircraft Builder

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601590].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      Alex Jones is nuttier than a squirrel turd.
      Au contraire. Alex Jones is an absolutely brilliant marketer, preying on the ignorant and weak-minded.

      Study and learn his marketing methods.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601595].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author AeroBuilders
        Originally Posted by myob View Post

        Au contraire. Alex Jones is an absolutely brilliant marketer, preying on the ignorant and weak-minded.

        Study and learn his marketing methods.
        Tell that to DrudgeReport.com (who lists INFOWARS stories week after week now) who is the NUMBER ONE most visited online news source!


        In the end, the BEST PRODUCTS do get traction and sell! The CITIZENRY is ready for the alternative media...the INFORMED "GET IT" now.
        Signature

        Seeking JV partners for Forex Trading products

        Forex Trader & Trade System Builder / Health & Wellness Expert / Sport Aircraft Builder

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601610].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    There was an episode of an X-Files spinoff that "predicted" 9/11 too ... what was that show called, it was with the 3 nerdy guys that Mulder always got his conspiracy theories from. I can't remember the title but the first or second episode of that show was about terrorists hijacking planes and running them into buildings. The Lone Gunmen? Something like that.

    Guys like Jones are doing a real disservice to Libertarians in my opinion. And I say that as a Libertarian myself... his theories just keep perpetuating the stereotype that all Libertarians are kooks and anarchists.

    No question the media is in the tank for Obama, but no sane person can say they were covering for Bush. They HATED his ass and wanted him out... no question. If there had been ANY 9/11 conspiracy to uncover - I mean anything at all that could even have been slightly CONSTRUED as being tied to government under Bush's watch, they would have found it and broadcast it for the world to see.

    I mean we're talking BIG companies who devoted MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to undoing the Bush presidency in every conceivable way they could. Not one word out of them... yet at the same time, we're supposed to believe that some loonbat with an Internet radio show figured it out? Dude. Come on. Seriously.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601587].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      ...but no sane person can say they were covering for Bush. They HATED his ass and wanted him out... no question. If there had been ANY 9/11 conspiracy to uncover - I mean anything at all that could even have been slightly CONSTRUED as being tied to government under Bush's watch, they would have found it and broadcast it for the world to see.

      I mean we're talking BIG companies who devoted MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to undoing the Bush presidency in every conceivable way they could. Not one word out of them... yet at the same time, we're supposed to believe that some loonbat with an Internet radio show figured it out? Dude. Come on. Seriously.
      Haha! Sorry Ron,

      But that sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. :p

      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601597].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author AeroBuilders
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      There was an episode of an X-Files spinoff that "predicted" 9/11 too ... what was that show called, it was with the 3 nerdy guys that Mulder always got his conspiracy theories from. I can't remember the title but the first or second episode of that show was about terrorists hijacking planes and running them into buildings. The Lone Gunmen? Something like that.
      Not even close....Alex SCREAMED AT YOU AND BEGGED YOU TO CALL THE WHITE HOUSE...to warn them we know they will stage a FALSE FLAG and try to blame it on OBL!!!

      Did you call.....NOPE!


      The CITIZENRY needs SOMEONE to tell them what is really going on (from over 10,000 sources continuing to leak critical info from the inside....who all want a CONSTITUTIONAL AMERICA RESTORED). I guess you will do just fine waiting on Faux News or MSNBC to tell you the real facts......YIKES!

      BTW, just ignore the MISSING NUKES continuing story. Keep calm and carry on......
      Signature

      Seeking JV partners for Forex Trading products

      Forex Trader & Trade System Builder / Health & Wellness Expert / Sport Aircraft Builder

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601599].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author AeroBuilders
        Get INFORMED or STAY CONFORMED!


        Your choice!
        Signature

        Seeking JV partners for Forex Trading products

        Forex Trader & Trade System Builder / Health & Wellness Expert / Sport Aircraft Builder

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601605].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    I'm not naive enough to think that there isn't a ton of stuff going on behind the scenes in this country, I just don't come to the same conclusions Jones does. Compare him to someone like Glenn Beck, and Beck comes across as way more credible. Even when the two are discussing the same issue or inconsistency, Beck presents a case that actually makes sense and Jones starts talking about the Knights Templar and the Illuminati. He's an angry, raving lunatic suffering from information overload and when he can't process it all he just fills in the blanks with whatever sells books. I bet if you went to his house, there would be newspaper clippings pinned to the wall and red yarn connecting them like a scene from A Beautiful Mind. He's not right in the head, man. And even if he gets lucky and nails it once in a while, so what? Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601613].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rondo
    I have no grand theories but I still don't understand why the 3 buildings collapsed the way they did. I thought it was weird then and I still do today.
    Steel-framed buildings should not collapse because of a fire, and they should not collapse in free-fall without any resistance like they did. But then they did yet no-one really seems to know why.


    Andrew
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601675].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ronrule
      Originally Posted by rondo View Post

      I have no grand theories but I still don't understand why the 3 buildings collapsed the way they did. I thought it was weird then and I still do today.
      Steel-framed buildings should not collapse because of a fire, and they should not collapse in free-fall without any resistance like they did. But then they did yet no-one really seems to know why.


      Andrew
      This was explained pretty well in the popular mechanics article.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601693].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author rondo
        Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

        This was explained pretty well in the popular mechanics article.
        No it was not really explained at all.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601698].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
        Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

        This was explained pretty well in the popular mechanics article.
        Again with the PM articles. They've long since been debunked sir.

        put the koolaide down and do some research

        ...you can start here...

        Debunking Popular Mechanics

        and here

        Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

        Read every word. no skimming.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601785].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ronrule
          Originally Posted by Doran Peck View Post

          Again with the PM articles. They've long since been debunked sir.

          put the koolaide down and do some research

          ...you can start here...

          Debunking Popular Mechanics

          and here

          Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

          Read every word. no skimming.
          I've read these before, and they both miss the point. I mean, even starting with the first one ... the "truthers" are obsessed with steel's melting temperature. Have they ever actually WORKED with steel? I build cars for a hobby, man, I've never had enough heat in my shop to MELT steel ... but it doesn't take much heat at all to WEAKEN the steel so I can bend it, press it, and make it do what I want. I do this with regular torches you can buy at Home Depot. And they don't burn nearly as hot as jet fuel.

          These amateurs lack even the most basic grasp of physics. But you're going to believe what you want. See that's the problem with the conspiracy theorist mindset... the difference between you and me is that I'm open to the "alternative theories", I just haven't seen one that's actually credible or convincing. You, on the other hand, aren't open to the mainstream version and are therefore clinging to any shred of anything, no matter how farfetched, that supports your belief.

          I don't care much for the government, and trust them even less than I care for them. But there are valid reasons not to trust the government, and there are kooky reasons that sell books and web ads for potassium iodide and storable food. I don't see myself getting on the Alex Jones bandwagon any time soon.

          Like I said, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601815].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by Doran Peck View Post

          Again with the PM articles. They've long since been debunked sir.

          put the koolaide down and do some research

          ...you can start here...

          Debunking Popular Mechanics

          and here

          Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

          Read every word. no skimming.
          I'll debunk those debunkers myself. I'm a (was) Coast Guard certified fire fighter, and was trained to fight fires at sea on sea going vessles. One of the types of fires I was trained to fight was metal fires. Not only can fuels be hot enough to melt steal and other metals, they can actually set metal on fire, which happens in many ship fires. Putting out metal fires is probably the toughest type of fire to fight.

          And, the lube oils and diesel fuels used on ships doesn't burn nearly as hot as does airplane fuel. Not only that, the steal doesn't need to melt into liquid or actually ignite to cause a structure to collapse, the steal only needs to bend or warp for the building to lose stability.

          BTW, just because one can't explain why buildings fell in no way logically means there was a conspiracy. It simply means you don't know why the buildings fell.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601830].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Apparently someone forgot to consult hundreds of military brass and other professionals about that one - as you will see if you scroll down this page, PM didn't really have much to say after all.
    If agreeing with this delineated list of 1,500 + engineers and architects, 200 + senior military officers, 250 + pilots and aviation professionals, 400 + professors, and etc...........makes me a paranoid nutbag, all I can say is that I'm in the best company on the planet. If anyone thinks they are intelligent enough to call all these people paranoid conspiracy nutbags....I'd say you have either an ego or denial problem.

    http://patriotsquestion911.com/


    Standoff === NOT, Terra. LMAO
    Signature

    Sal
    New PLR - Disaster prep duo report pkg: The Art of the Graceful Bug out, and Preparing Pets for a Disaster. - PM me for report details.
    Quality PLR Ebooks and Reports:
    Mind/Language - Weight, - Pet/Dog - Disaster - 2011 Earthquake Report - Hair Care

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601783].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post





      Standoff === NOT, Terra. LMAO
      Haha!

      Well, I thought it was more clever than the drab, old, worn out Cookie Monster eating popcorn gif.

      Oh, and your link isn't working, it says page not found.

      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601805].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

        Haha!

        Well, I thought it was more clever than the drab, old, worn out Cookie Monster eating popcorn gif.

        Oh, and your link isn't working, it says page not found.

        Terra

        Fixed that. Did that to a link yesterday, too. I think someone is switching the links when I post them..........they don't want anyone to know what I'm trying to share..........

        Signature

        Sal
        New PLR - Disaster prep duo report pkg: The Art of the Graceful Bug out, and Preparing Pets for a Disaster. - PM me for report details.
        Quality PLR Ebooks and Reports:
        Mind/Language - Weight, - Pet/Dog - Disaster - 2011 Earthquake Report - Hair Care

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601951].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    Here's the problem with that list, Sal ... who has done the due diligence and checked their credentials? I know Popular Mechanics did theirs.

    But Jones? Not so much. He was caught lying about FEMA coffins. He was caught lying about the Haditha Marines (or jumping the gun ... I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one). But if that's all it was, why no follow-up? No retraction? When Jones is wrong, where's the "Hey, I was wrong about this" - nothing. It just disappears from his site. Or... he continues. And the "debunkers" are part of the conspiracy! Popular mechanics is in the pocket of the Illuminati!:rolleyes:

    Remember, we're talking about a guy who's Rise to Fame started in 1999, when he started preaching mass chaos, martial law, nuclear missiles firing themselves, etc. as a result of the "Y2K bug". And...? Nothing. Then 9/11 happened, and he did what he does best - capitalize on a situation, create a conspiracy, and sell the hell out of it.

    Sorry, I just can't take this man seriously.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601801].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    Here's another bit pf physics...when the temperature of something rises, it expands. And this includes not only the I beams, but also the welds and the air in the spaces between the rivets and the I-beams used to support buidings.

    How much expansion is needed for I beams, welds, and/or rivets to fail?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601833].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      I'm interrupting here with a question for you all.

      How come when conspiracy theorists are discussed, no one ever mentions Jesse Ventura?



      I'm serious. I just was wondering why not?

      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601863].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom


      Classic Terra, LOL!


      Clearly this is another GW conspiracy, which will never be resolved!

      And if it was done by other means, than planes hitting it, then the real concern that groups hiding in the Military machine did this has to come up.

      If that is true, there might be worse to come than 9,11?


      Shane
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8601872].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    Steve, don't you find what you're saying to be a little contradictory?

    On one hand, you say the buildings collapsed perfectly as if it were a controlled demolition. Then on the other hand, you talk about how building 7 was damaged (there's video that clearly shows a piece of the north tower hitting building 7). Not to mention all of the other buildings in the area that were damaged, like the World Financial Center, St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, the Deutsch Bank building across the street, part of Manhattan Community College, the Verizon building, the Hilton, and I think one or two others.

    Controlled demolition? Not by any definition of "control" I've ever seen used in deconstruction. Of course it was going to collapse downward ... were you expecting it to fall over sideways? Once the weight of a bunch of floors crashes down, that mass is forcing downward on all of the subsequent floors and the chain reaction begins. We saw it happen twice in one day.

    Also, the collapse clearly started at the point of impact of the planes, not the top - which contradicts everything you just said about controlled demolition.

    And ... perhaps the biggest hole in the "controlled demo" theory ... if it were true, why would they have needed planes? Think about it. They could have just blown the buildings, and blamed the terrorists for rigging and bombing them. Afterall, it's not unprecedented, a terrorist attempted to bomb the WTC in 1993, remember? If the government was going to go to the trouble of planting bombs to bring down the buildings, they would have just DETONATED THEM and blamed the terrorists. No need for planes and a massive coverup. In fact, that would have been way more believable - the Bin Laden family owns one of the most successful structural engineering and construction companies in the middle east. It's entirely plausible Usama would have had the knowledge to do a proper demo.

    Sorry man, the controlled demo theory just doesn't hold up under ANY microscope.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8602050].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      Steve, don't you find what you're saying to be a little contradictory?

      On one hand, you say the buildings collapsed perfectly as if it were a controlled demolition. Then on the other hand, you talk about how building 7 was damaged (there's video that clearly shows a piece of the north tower hitting building 7). Not to mention all of the other buildings in the area that were damaged, like the World Financial Center, St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, the Deutsch Bank building across the street, part of Manhattan Community College, the Verizon building, the Hilton, and I think one or two others.

      Controlled demolition? Not by any definition of "control" I've ever seen used in deconstruction. Of course it was going to collapse downward ... were you expecting it to fall over sideways? Once the weight of a bunch of floors crashes down, that mass is forcing downward on all of the subsequent floors and the chain reaction begins. We saw it happen twice in one day.

      Also, the collapse clearly started at the point of impact of the planes, not the top - which contradicts everything you just said about controlled demolition.
      Well, I saw a few slow motion videos, and they showed a more predictable and controlled collapse, and funny how there isn't talk about the rest.

      And ... perhaps the biggest hole in the "controlled demo" theory ... if it were true, why would they have needed planes? Think about it. They could have just blown the buildings, and blamed the terrorists for rigging and bombing them.
      I'm not even saying it was originally planned that the buildings be destroyed, or that they were destroyed by americans for a nefarious purpose. I heard a couple conspiracy theories that made absolutely no sense and that would lead to suits from united and probably boeing(IIRC). Of course, I didn't bother even listening to most of them.

      Afterall, it's not unprecedented
      I'VE never heard of such a thing!

      , a terrorist attempted to bomb the WTC in 1993, remember?
      WRONG! YEAH, I remember that! They had a truck bomb that tried to destroy the building. There is NO COMPARISON! ONE requires DAYS or even MONTHS of work by possibly DOZENS of people and requires modification to THOUSANDS of points! The other is something ONE person could do in less than an hour under secrecy at ONE point! If it DID bring down the tower, it would fall similar to a tree and have been FAR worse than what happened. Of course, it was unlikely to work for MANY reasons.

      If the government was going to go to the trouble of planting bombs to bring down the buildings, they would have just DETONATED THEM and blamed the terrorists. No need for planes and a massive coverup.
      AGAIN, I'm not saying it was done for that reason, but if it were, it would have not been believable at all. BESIDES, terrorists want MORE destruction, NOT less!

      In fact, that would have been way more believable - the Bin Laden family owns one of the most successful structural engineering and construction companies in the middle east. It's entirely plausible Usama would have had the knowledge to do a proper demo.
      So you have the "knowledge". SO WHAT!?!?!!?!? He would need ACCESS also!

      Sorry man, the controlled demo theory just doesn't hold up under ANY microscope.
      You are looking in the wrong lens!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8602846].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jazzlovers
    oh boy. i have put my brain back first.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8602929].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    Actually, it would be kind of cool to have 9/11 on trial like the Scopes trial.
    Get the best representatives for each side...

    When it comes to conspiracy theories, sometimes I get swayed by
    compelling arguments from credible people, but then I think about
    how come there has not been an insider to come forward? (Can't
    kill all the ones who might sing. There was "Deep Throat" for Watergate.
    There are more digital avenues to get the data out and saved, and protect
    oneself....)

    May there never be another 9/11 or Hitler.

    Dan
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8604644].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

      Actually, it would be kind of cool to have 9/11 on trial like the Scopes trial.
      Get the best representatives for each side...

      When it comes to conspiracy theories, sometimes I get swayed by
      compelling arguments from credible people, but then I think about
      how come there has not been an insider to come forward? (Can't
      kill all the ones who might sing. There was "Deep Throat" for Watergate.
      There are more digital avenues to get the data out and saved, and protect
      oneself....)

      May there never be another 9/11 or Hitler.

      Dan
      And this is a major problem I have with many conspiracies...not too many people can keep a secret, especially when they can get 7 figures to write a tell-all book.

      People like to talk about things like a "code of silence" with organizations like the Mafia. But the reality is, put a mobster in jail and they squeal like pigs.

      And the more people needed to be involved, the more likely there's someone willing to talk.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8604816].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    There are many reasons to question the Osama Bin Laden videos and all of the information about him, right up to his supposed death a few years ago.

    DECEIVING AMERICA: The Fake Bin Laden Tapes
    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8605844].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      If the US government blew up the buildings,they knew that the planes were going to hit both buildings. If the planes hitting the buildings were part of a conspiracy, then....

      The pilots, that boarded the 4 jets (total) were in on it...as were..

      All the passengers, all the family members that the passengers called, the air traffic controllers that saw the planes hit the towers, and heard the entire thing as it happened.

      The insurance company that insured the jets, their inspectors they had investigate.....

      Either it happened as reported or;

      All the passengers were either paid off to fake their own deaths..or they were killed. Because all were witnesses to what happened and who hijacked the planes.

      Let's say 1,000 people involved..civilians...with no government ties. (I'm being kind here)

      And they have all kept completely silent for the last 12 years. (Not the people who died, of course)

      Oh, I forgot about the passengers that actually stopped the hijackers and crashed the jet in Pennsylvania. They must have been in on it too. I applaud their sacrifice. As well as the sacrifice of their families, who they called and told exactly what was happening.

      They were all in on it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8605984].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author myob
        Remember, according to some "experts", the planes could not have taken down the WTC by themselves. There were UFOs (US drones?) photographed near the twin towers on 9/11. In addition a missile (microwave weapon system "thermobarics") was shown to have been fired out of Building 7, which later collapsed under strange circumstances. The armory inside Building 7 was completely destroyed.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8606018].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author DubDubDubDot
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        If the US government blew up the buildings,they knew that the planes were going to hit both buildings. If the planes hitting the buildings were part of a conspiracy, then....

        The pilots, that boarded the 4 jets (total) were in on it...as were..

        All the passengers, all the family members that the passengers called, the air traffic controllers that saw the planes hit the towers, and heard the entire thing as it happened.

        The insurance company that insured the jets, their inspectors they had investigate.....

        Either it happened as reported or;

        All the passengers were either paid off to fake their own deaths..or they were killed. Because all were witnesses to what happened and who hijacked the planes.

        Let's say 1,000 people involved..civilians...with no government ties. (I'm being kind here)

        And they have all kept completely silent for the last 12 years. (Not the people who died, of course)

        Oh, I forgot about the passengers that actually stopped the hijackers and crashed the jet in Pennsylvania. They must have been in on it too. I applaud their sacrifice. As well as the sacrifice of their families, who they called and told exactly what was happening.

        They were all in on it.
        Your scenario hinges on the assumption that the US government* would never kill its own people.

        *or an entity working in the interests of the government.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8606163].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
          Originally Posted by DubDubDubDot View Post

          Your scenario hinges on the assumption that the US government* would never kill its own people.

          *or an entity working in the interests of the government.
          No. My assertion (along with nearly every sane person in the country)
          is that:

          The government couldn't keep 1,000 people quiet about it. For example, all the victims that said...to their families...from the jets...as it was happening...that the planes were hijacked....and the families that they talked to as it happened.

          Plus all the people working at the airports that saw the people get on the jets. Plus any witnesses that saw the planes hit the towers.

          Plus the air traffic controllers that saw the whole thing unfold.

          This isn't an argument. I'm trying to be polite.


          Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

          An engineer friend of mine -very, very brilliant man - contends
          that the towers and building 7 collapsed straight down because
          of gravity and the increasing weight and forces of the higher
          floors coming downwards upon the lower. More and more
          weight, and more and more force and velocity in the downward vector.
          (Building 7 being damaged by the other building.)

          Dan
          Structural engineers say the same thing.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8606340].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author LarryC
            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

            No. My assertion (along with nearly every sane person in the country)
            is that:

            The government couldn't keep 1,000 people quiet about it. For example, all the victims that said...to their families...from the jets...as it was happening...that the planes were hijacked....and the families that they talked to as it happened.

            Plus all the people working at the airports that saw the people get on the jets. Plus any witnesses that saw the planes hit the towers.

            Plus the air traffic controllers that saw the whole thing unfold.

            This isn't an argument. I'm trying to be polite.




            Structural engineers say the same thing.
            I'm not following this logic. I don't see why so many people would have to be in on it. The fact that real people were on the planes and died doesn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy as well.

            Most Truthers agree that the planes really hit the towers, but many believe that there were also explosives that went off which caused them to collapse the way they did. With this scenario, not that many people would have needed to cooperate or have pre-knowledge of it. Certainly not the passengers, pilots or those in the control towers.

            When it came to the (lack of) response by the military, that was obviously an order given from high up. It doesn't mean, however, that the truth was known to everyone who was obeying the orders. In government, and the military in particular, everything operates within a strict hierarchy. So one outcome can involve facts known by only a small number of people.

            It's easy to use a straw man type argument here and pretend that conspiracy theories assert that there were no planes. This is something hardly anyone claims. No reason at all that victims and ordinary workers had to know anything.
            Signature
            Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8606540].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
              Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

              I'm not following this logic. I don't see why so many people would have to be in on it. The fact that real people were on the planes and died doesn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy as well.

              Most Truthers agree that the planes really hit the towers, but many believe that there were also explosives that went off which caused them to collapse the way they did. With this scenario, not that many people would have needed to cooperate or have pre-knowledge of it. Certainly not the passengers, pilots or those in the control towers.

              When it came to the (lack of) response by the military, that was obviously an order given from high up. It doesn't mean, however, that the truth was known to everyone who was obeying the orders. In government, and the military in particular, everything operates within a strict hierarchy. So one outcome can involve facts known by only a small number of people.

              It's easy to use a straw man type argument here and pretend that conspiracy theories assert that there were no planes. This is something hardly anyone claims. No reason at all that victims and ordinary workers had to know anything.
              Steve; I have to admit, you're doing pretty well here. I don't mean I agree, but you aren't sounding like a complete loon.

              So who flew the planes into the buildings? Were they hired by the US government...to kill themselves?

              Tall buildings collapse that way normally. No set explosives are needed. I would think a full sized jet flying into the building would be enough.

              If there were set explosives, the government would have to know that the planes were going to hit them. Why else would they go to all the trouble to set explosive charges on every floor?

              I wasn't saying that you thought there were no planes. You said earlier that you did think planes actually crashed into the towers. It was a very small part of the argument I hear often.

              On a different note. Conspiracy buffs are different from most ...um...people who believe impossible things.

              They are sometimes highly intelligent. But highly intelligent doesn't mean stable.
              I don't mean you personally. It's just my personal experience.

              Why are conspiracy theories always so much more complex than what really happened? Because it's more fun that way. Again, just from personal experience with buffs.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8606582].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                Steve; I have to admit, you're doing pretty well here. I don't mean I agree, but you aren't sounding like a complete loon.

                So who flew the planes into the buildings? Were they hired by the US government...to kill themselves? Planes can be flown remotely

                Tall buildings collapse that way normally. No set explosives are needed. I would think a full sized jet flying into the building would be enough. Except that no building in the history of mankind has ever fallen that way naturally...go ahead and try to find even one example.

                If there were set explosives, the government would have to know that the planes were going to hit them. What is so unrealistic about that? I think that statement kind of assumes that the Government is an Angel and would never harm a hair on a citizens head, while ignoring that fact that it has a history of harming its own citizens, false flags, cover-ups, rampant dishonesty, and is riddled with corruption from A-Z Why else would they go to all the trouble to set explosive charges on every floor? Apparently you didn't see the accounts from building tenants that said that on several occasions...including the very weekend before...the building were being worked on by workers in protective suits, and that the security systems were shut off. Oddly the commission neglected to include these testimonies in its report. It also conveniently excluded the 140 firefighter testimonies.

                I wasn't saying that you thought there were no planes. You said earlier that you did think planes actually crashed into the towers. It was a very small part of the argument I hear often. I agree that the people that suggest there were no planes are nutty...even nuttier than me.

                On a different note. Conspiracy buffs are different from most ...um...people who believe impossible things.

                They are sometimes highly intelligent. But highly intelligent doesn't mean stable.
                I don't mean you personally. It's just my personal experience.

                Why are conspiracy theories always so much more complex than what really happened? Because it's more fun that way. Again, just from personal experience with buffs.
                Some might argue that they aren't complex at all....to some the conspiracy is the simplest explanation to what happened....matter of perspective.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8606954].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                  Originally Posted by Doran Peck View Post

                  So who flew the planes into the buildings? Were they hired by the US government...to kill themselves? Planes can be flown remotely
                  I believe that. I also believe that the hostesses and passengers would never notice...that there were no pilots, and that nobody was flying the plane.
                  I believe that must have been true on all four planes. And that the airlines would never notice that nobody was scheduled to fly the planes...but they took off anyway. I also believe, with my whole heart, that the transmissions coming from the planes were faked, and that all four black boxes, from the planes...that gave a complete minute by minute account..... were planted after the fact. by men in trench coats.

                  See? It's catching.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607060].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                    You are a funny dude! Haha. Hey, Claude, I don't know if you have seen this either but it's very informative with a debate from one of the Al Qaeda 9-11 masterminds and a truther. ( and it's one of the funniest pieces of satire I have seen. )


                    Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                    I believe that. I also believe that the hostesses and passengers would never notice...that there were no pilots, and that nobody was flying the plane.
                    I believe that must have been true on all four planes. And that the airlines would never notice that nobody was scheduled to fly the planes...but they took off anyway. I also believe, with my whole heart, that the transmissions coming from the planes were faked, and that all four black boxes, from the planes...that gave a complete minute by minute account..... were planted after the fact. by men in trench coats.

                    See? It's catching.
                    Signature
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607116].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author LarryC
                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                Steve; I have to admit, you're doing pretty well here. I don't mean I agree, but you aren't sounding like a complete loon.

                So who flew the planes into the buildings? Were they hired by the US government...to kill themselves?

                Tall buildings collapse that way normally. No set explosives are needed. I would think a full sized jet flying into the building would be enough.

                If there were set explosives, the government would have to know that the planes were going to hit them. Why else would they go to all the trouble to set explosive charges on every floor?

                I wasn't saying that you thought there were no planes. You said earlier that you did think planes actually crashed into the towers. It was a very small part of the argument I hear often.

                On a different note. Conspiracy buffs are different from most ...um...people who believe impossible things.

                They are sometimes highly intelligent. But highly intelligent doesn't mean stable.
                I don't mean you personally. It's just my personal experience.

                Why are conspiracy theories always so much more complex than what really happened? Because it's more fun that way. Again, just from personal experience with buffs.
                I assume this refers to my post even though it's addressed to Steve. Thanks for saying that I don't sound like a total loon...I think :confused:

                As I said, I don't claim to know exactly what happened. I agree that there had to be some foresight regarding the planes if explosives were planted in the buildings.

                So whoever planned it used the hijackers as stooges to complete the mission. I don't doubt that there are many potential suicide bombers out there who could be convinced to do something like that. It's also possible that some kind of remote technology was used to ensure that the planes remained on target. Either way, there was no need for thousands of people to have been in on the plan.

                Granted, this is all speculation, but so is any explanation -including the official one.
                Signature
                Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607396].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            Claude, your post reminded me of this guy who posted his response to the truthers and the movie Loose Change about 8 years ago, around the same time I had a weeks long debate here in the off topic section about 9-11 conspiracy theories. Paul ( MYOB ) remembers that one. I think you will appreciate the humor:

            There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons.

            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

            No. My assertion (along with nearly every sane person in the country)
            is that:

            The government couldn't keep 1,000 people quiet about it. For example, all the victims that said...to their families...from the jets...as it was happening...that the planes were hijacked....and the families that they talked to as it happened.

            Plus all the people working at the airports that saw the people get on the jets. Plus any witnesses that saw the planes hit the towers.

            Plus the air traffic controllers that saw the whole thing unfold.

            This isn't an argument. I'm trying to be polite.




            Structural engineers say the same thing.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8606667].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              Claude, your post reminded me of this guy who posted his response to the truthers and the movie Loose Change about 8 years ago, around the same time I had a weeks long debate here in the off topic section about 9-11 conspiracy theories. Paul ( MYOB ) remembers that one. I think you will appreciate the humor:

              There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons.
              Tim; That link should just be the answer to every 911 theory we hear about. Very witty, and well done.

              Did you ever see the 9/11 section on Zeitgeist? (A DVD). It was pretty well done. And I can see why some would take it at face value.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8606696].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author myob
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              Claude, your post reminded me of this guy who posted his response to the truthers and the movie Loose Change about 8 years ago, around the same time I had a weeks long debate here in the off topic section about 9-11 conspiracy theories. Paul ( MYOB ) remembers that one.
              Ah yes, thanks for the memories. Those were the days. As I recall, there were several 9-11 and roughly 5 or 6 similar "conspiracy" threads in which we were involved back in the day. Unfortunately, they all got way over-heated and deleted. By comparison, the stuff here in this thread is like luke-warm re-hashed old hash.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607941].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    There is ONE piece of the "9/11 conspiracy" that's rarely talked about, and I think it's perhaps the only area that raised an eyebrow for me...

    When Rumsfeld said "shot down over Pennsylvania".

    I always wondered why that never got more attention. Because the truth is, it still fits with the official version of 9/11... it was the last plane. Two had already hit the twin towers. One hit the Pentagon. One more had been hijacked, was still in the air, and was headed somewhere. It's entirely "by the book" that the military would have attempted to divert it, and shot it down over a field if they couldn't.

    Why conspiracy theorists have placed an overwhelming focus on this "controlled demolition" theory - which, frankly, is ridiculous - and virtually ignored the only theory that might have some meat to it defies logic. I can only offer my opinion; If the plane over PA was shot down, tragic as that would have been, it would have been a reasonable move - and it would make the "official version" more credible - thereby making guys like Alex Jones who make their money perpetuating conspiracies less interested in investigating it.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8606046].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      There is ONE piece of the "9/11 conspiracy" that's rarely talked about, and I think it's perhaps the only area that raised an eyebrow for me...

      When Rumsfeld said "shot down over Pennsylvania".

      I always wondered why that never got more attention. Because the truth is, it still fits with the official version of 9/11... it was the last plane.
      Either Rumsfeld said it before he knew what really happened, or it really was shot down.

      I would tend to think Rumsfeld made a mistake. It's the simplest explanation.

      And if it were shot down, there would be evidence, and lots of people would have to be silent.

      For the vast majority of conspiracies to work..
      It would take far more effort that the reported story to pull off, and people involved would have to far far smarter than they are.

      There is no Lex Luthor. Although I wish there were....then I would have an excuse to join Batman in defeating him.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8606097].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      There is ONE piece of the "9/11 conspiracy" that's rarely talked about, and I think it's perhaps the only area that raised an eyebrow for me...

      When Rumsfeld said "shot down over Pennsylvania".

      I always wondered why that never got more attention. Because the truth is, it still fits with the official version of 9/11... it was the last plane. Two had already hit the twin towers. One hit the Pentagon. One more had been hijacked, was still in the air, and was headed somewhere. It's entirely "by the book" that the military would have attempted to divert it, and shot it down over a field if they couldn't.

      Why conspiracy theorists have placed an overwhelming focus on this "controlled demolition" theory - which, frankly, is ridiculous - and virtually ignored the only theory that might have some meat to it defies logic. I can only offer my opinion; If the plane over PA was shot down, tragic as that would have been, it would have been a reasonable move - and it would make the "official version" more credible - thereby making guys like Alex Jones who make their money perpetuating conspiracies less interested in investigating it.
      Because two towers were hit -- 3 fell. Not hard to figure out why that's a little bit of a curiosity?
      People keep rattling about Alex Jones. Check that list of people in the link I provided - I linked to the "Military" brass page instead of scientists page so everyone can see there's a lot of TOP Brass that think the Official statement was bull shyte. There's several hundred of them. Are you saying we have several hundred OFFICERS and experts in the military that are "conspiracy nutbags"? My my. Aren't we just a tad arrogant?

      Are people really so satisfied with an article in PM that it outweighs the opinions of their own MILITARY BRASS?
      Signature

      Sal
      New PLR - Disaster prep duo report pkg: The Art of the Graceful Bug out, and Preparing Pets for a Disaster. - PM me for report details.
      Quality PLR Ebooks and Reports:
      Mind/Language - Weight, - Pet/Dog - Disaster - 2011 Earthquake Report - Hair Care

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8606962].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      There is ONE piece of the "9/11 conspiracy" that's rarely talked about, and I think it's perhaps the only area that raised an eyebrow for me...

      When Rumsfeld said "shot down over Pennsylvania".

      I always wondered why that never got more attention. Because the truth is, it still fits with the official version of 9/11... it was the last plane. Two had already hit the twin towers. One hit the Pentagon. One more had been hijacked, was still in the air, and was headed somewhere. It's entirely "by the book" that the military would have attempted to divert it, and shot it down over a field if they couldn't.

      Why conspiracy theorists have placed an overwhelming focus on this "controlled demolition" theory - which, frankly, is ridiculous - and virtually ignored the only theory that might have some meat to it defies logic. I can only offer my opinion; If the plane over PA was shot down, tragic as that would have been, it would have been a reasonable move - and it would make the "official version" more credible - thereby making guys like Alex Jones who make their money perpetuating conspiracies less interested in investigating it.
      To say its "ridiculous" is irresponsible.

      It looks like a controlled demolition...and its the first building in the history of Earth to fall naturally into its own footprint....a result in which the only way Humans know how to replicate is with controlled demolition.

      oh...but lets just not even add that to our investigation...because its ridiculous to consider controlled demolition.

      A good comparison would be if I said...Hey look at that hole in your car window. You say "wow I wonder what happened", then I say "well it could have been a bullet shot through it....it could have been a rock thrown through it"

      You..."Oh Puh leeez...a rock? that's ridiculous."
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607044].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
        Originally Posted by Doran Peck View Post

        A good comparison would be if I said...Hey look at that hole in your car window. You say "wow I wonder what happened", then I say "well it could have been a bullet shot through it....it could have been a rock thrown through it"

        You..."Oh Puh leeez...a rock? that's ridiculous."
        No. A rock through a window is ...well...sane.

        If you want to carry the analogy...

        It's like you saying that the rock was planted by spies and the window was rigged to shatter by people who had no idea that a rock was going to be thrown. And that the car was driven by remote control, and the car was planted by...yes.....The evil US Government, and the whole scene was so we could start a war.

        There, that's better.

        And after Ron hears that story...he says, "isn't it more probable that someone just threw a rock?"

        No!!!!! It had to be a conspiracy. Remember? You're one of the people that claim it's a conspiracy?

        The rest of us just think it was a rock...just like the newspaper said it was.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607081].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ronrule
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          No. A rock through a window is ...well...sane.

          If you want to carry the analogy...

          It's like you saying that the rock was planted by spies and the window was rigged to shatter by people who had no idea that a rock was going to be thrown. And that the car was driven by remote control, and the car was planted by...yes.....The evil US Government, and the whole scene was so we could start a war.

          There, that's better.

          And after Ron hears that story...he says, "isn't it more probable that someone just threw a rock?"

          No!!!!! It had to be a conspiracy. Remember? You're one of the people that claim it's a conspiracy?

          The rest of us just think it was a rock...just like the newspaper said it was.
          Clearly the orchestrated window-shattering was done by the auto glass repair company. You hear their commercials on the radio all the time ... but how can they possibly be profitable, there can't be that many broken windshields. I never see them. They run those ads to get you used to the idea that windows get broken all the time ... then, in the night, they break them. And then you hear their ad on the radio in the morning.

          Coincidence??

          But wait ... there's more proof. In 1989, "The Far Side" comic author Gary Larson predicted it would happen and disguised his prediction in the form of one of his comics. I give you Exhibit A.



          It's a conspiracy!
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607217].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          No. A rock through a window is ...well...sane.

          If you want to carry the analogy...

          It's like you saying that the rock was planted by spies and the window was rigged to shatter by people who had no idea that a rock was going to be thrown. And that the car was driven by remote control, and the car was planted by...yes.....The evil US Government, and the whole scene was so we could start a war.

          There, that's better.

          And after Ron hears that story...he says, "isn't it more probable that someone just threw a rock?"

          No!!!!! It had to be a conspiracy. Remember? You're one of the people that claim it's a conspiracy?

          The rest of us just think it was a rock...just like the newspaper said it was.
          Wow, you made up a lot of stuff. If you re-read what I wrote, I believe it was rock or a bullet.

          Clearly the example went over your head.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607287].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          No. A rock through a window is ...well...sane.

          If you want to carry the analogy...

          It's like you saying that the rock was planted by spies and the window was rigged to shatter by people who had no idea that a rock was going to be thrown. And that the car was driven by remote control, and the car was planted by...yes.....The evil US Government, and the whole scene was so we could start a war.

          There, that's better.

          And after Ron hears that story...he says, "isn't it more probable that someone just threw a rock?"

          No!!!!! It had to be a conspiracy. Remember? You're one of the people that claim it's a conspiracy?

          The rest of us just think it was a rock...just like the newspaper said it was.
          Doran is arguing occams razor! He is saying that it is actually MORE logical to say that a controlled demolition occurred than to say it was just a coincidence. That isn't to say it did. It CERTAINLY isn't to say that it is a conspiracy of some sort. It isn't even to say anyone believed it did. It is simply to say that it is not a ridiculous stretch.

          What if the buildings just came down, or the plans were smaller, etc... Would they have looked farther and maybe found something else? HECK, maybe someone thought about blowing up the building, or used some shortcut, etc... WHO KNOWS?

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607378].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    With respect to the thermite issue, I recall seeing a chemist
    interviewed on a mainstream TV show. He contended that
    the thermite was a byproduct of the intense heating and
    chemical reactions of the common materials and coatings
    used in the construction of the buildings.

    An engineer friend of mine -very, very brilliant man - contends
    that the towers and building 7 collapsed straight down because
    of gravity and the increasing weight and forces of the higher
    floors coming downwards upon the lower. More and more
    weight, and more and more force and velocity in the downward vector.
    (Building 7 being damaged by the other building.)

    Dan
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8606166].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
    So by your responses to my window example, Claude and Ron, you publically affirm the following:

    1. That you see no similarities whatsoever to how a building falls during controlled demolition, and any aspect of how building 7 fell.

    2. That buildings fall into their own footprint naturally, and that such happens frequently enough to be considered commonplace enough to quell even the smallest doubt.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607275].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ronrule
      Originally Posted by Doran Peck View Post

      So by your responses to my window example, Claude and Ron, you publically affirm the following:

      1. That you see no similarities whatsoever to how a building falls during controlled demolition, and any aspect of how building 7 fell.

      2. That buildings fall into their own footprint naturally, and that such happens frequently enough to be considered commonplace enough to quell even the smallest doubt.
      A basic grasp of physics, metal working, and how these buildings were designed is all you need to understand why they fell the way they did. Also, there is video footage of chunks of the North tower hitting building 7. I covered this with more specifics earlier in the thread. See posts 70 and 77 on Page 2.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607345].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
        Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

        A basic grasp of physics, metal working, and how these buildings were designed is all you need to understand why they fell the way they did. Also, there is video footage of chunks of the North tower hitting building 7. I covered this with more specifics earlier in the thread. See posts 70 and 77 on Page 2.
        Except that your completely ignoring the testimony and public assertions of hundreds of experts who say its not a slam dunk, and its not black and white obvious.

        There are credible proponents on both sides of the fence....so a "basic understanding" of things is obviously not enough to close the issue... I'm not seeing where you have any basis for claiming it to be an open and shut case....even so much as calling it ridiculous.

        Should we take this approach to all crime scenes from now on...no more looking at every detail....no more checking each possible avenue....just whatever looks obvious to whoever happens upon the scene will be the final verdict?

        You might have some substance if there were any historically examples of buildings naturally imploding on themselves in symmetric perfection...but there are none....and so...it raises questions...and rightly so.

        You might have some substance if the building had even the remotest imperfection or flaw in its perfectly symmetrical descent to the ground, but it doesn't. It looks exactly, frame by frame, like any of the other hundreds of perfectly executed controlled demolition footage around....but apparently its ridiculous to even make that connection.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607652].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ronrule
          Originally Posted by Doran Peck View Post

          Except that your completely ignoring the testimony and public assertions of hundreds of experts who say its not a slam dunk, and its not black and white obvious.

          There are credible proponents on both sides of the fence....so a "basic understanding" of things is obviously not enough to close the issue... I'm not seeing where you have any basis for claiming it to be an open and shut case....even so much as calling it ridiculous.

          Should we take this approach to all crime scenes from now on...no more looking at every detail....no more checking each possible avenue....just whatever looks obvious to whoever happens upon the scene will be the final verdict?

          You might have some substance if there were any historically examples of buildings naturally imploding on themselves in symmetric perfection...but there are none....and so...it raises questions...and rightly so.

          You might have some substance if the building had even the remotest imperfection or flaw in its perfectly symmetrical descent to the ground, but it doesn't. It looks exactly, frame by frame, like any of the other hundreds of perfectly executed controlled demolition footage around....but apparently its ridiculous to even make that connection.
          Dude ... it looks NOTHING like a perfectly executed controlled demolition.

          In a controlled demolition, the collapse doesn't start in the middle. There also aren't pieces that fall off of the top and damage other buildings nearby. Like building 7, the World Financial Center, St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, the Deutsch Bank building across the street, part of Manhattan Community College, the Verizon building, the Hilton, and I think one or two others. All of those were damaged, and wouldn't have been damaged in a controlled demo. It's ludicrous to say that this resembles any definition of "controlled", no matter how loose.

          And like I said before... the biggest hole in the "controlled demo" theory is that it doesn't need planes. They could have just blown the buildings and blamed the terrorists for rigging and bombing them. They tried to in 1993 with a basement bomb and failed, so it wouldn't be a stretch to assume they came back with a more calculated and timed approach. The Bin Laden family owns the largest and most successful structural engineering and construction companies in the middle east, so it would even fit with the "official" story because it's entirely plausible that Bin Laden would have had the knowledge to do a proper demo. And there are TONS of middle-eastern engineers who could have gotten jobs there to carry it out.

          The controlled demo theory just doesn't hold up. If the government was going to go to the trouble of planting bombs to bring down the buildings, they would have just DETONATED THEM and blamed the terrorists. No need for planes and a massive coverup.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8608749].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
            Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

            Dude ... it looks NOTHING like a perfectly executed controlled demolition.

            In a controlled demolition, the collapse doesn't start in the middle. There also aren't pieces that fall off of the top and damage other buildings nearby. Like building 7, the World Financial Center, St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, the Deutsch Bank building across the street, part of Manhattan Community College, the Verizon building, the Hilton, and I think one or two others. All of those were damaged, and wouldn't have been damaged in a controlled demo. It's ludicrous to say that this resembles any definition of "controlled", no matter how loose.

            And like I said before... the biggest hole in the "controlled demo" theory is that it doesn't need planes. They could have just blown the buildings and blamed the terrorists for rigging and bombing them. They tried to in 1993 with a basement bomb and failed, so it wouldn't be a stretch to assume they came back with a more calculated and timed approach. The Bin Laden family owns the largest and most successful structural engineering and construction companies in the middle east, so it would even fit with the "official" story because it's entirely plausible that Bin Laden would have had the knowledge to do a proper demo. And there are TONS of middle-eastern engineers who could have gotten jobs there to carry it out.

            The controlled demo theory just doesn't hold up. If the government was going to go to the trouble of planting bombs to bring down the buildings, they would have just DETONATED THEM and blamed the terrorists. No need for planes and a massive coverup.
            except that your neglecting to allow the possibility of the Perps wanting to instill the greatest amount of fear in the American People that they could achieve...the more dramatic the scarier. Instead you can't get past the minimum that they would have supposedly only "needed" to do to make it look like a terrorist attack.

            ...and to say it doesn't even look remotely like a demolition is just amazingly dense. This is a clear case of seeing what you want to see. I suggest going to Youtube and spend an hour looking at controlled demolition footage.

            ....and none of those adjoining buildings received damage from the falling debri? ...it was all building 7 's doing? ....Amazing.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8608982].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ronrule
              Originally Posted by Doran Peck View Post

              except that your neglecting to allow the possibility of the Perps wanting to instill the greatest amount of fear in the American People that they could achieve...the more dramatic the scarier. Instead you can't get past the minimum that they would have supposedly only "needed" to do to make it look like a terrorist attack.
              Well, lets think about this... you believe the government makes "fake Bin laden videos" right? That's what I always hear from the conspiracy kooks. So instead of crashing planes into a building, giving the MAJORITY of people inside the ability to escape, why not just blow it up and then air a fake bin laden video taking credit for it? That would have killed between 15,000 and 17,000 - many times more.

              If the point, as you say, was to create and instill dramatic fear ... what's more dramatic or scary than two buildings just randomly BLOWING UP at the same time, killing everyone inside, without any warning? I mean heck, that would freak me the hell out more than planes.

              The controlled demo theory just doesn't fly.

              ...and to say it doesn't even look remotely like a demolition is just amazingly dense. This is a clear case of seeing what you want to see. I suggest going to Youtube and spend an hour looking at controlled demolition footage.
              See, that's what I am saying about you. What controlled demolition have you ever seen that starts with a big hole in the middle, collapsing from the center, with pieces falling off and hitting other buildings nearby? I challenge you to find ONE controlled demolition that works this way... I've seen all of the videos on YouTube that attempt to make this comparison, and none of them hit the mark.


              ....and none of those adjoining buildings received damage from the falling debri? ...it was all building 7 's doing? ....Amazing.
              Um, what? All of the buildings I named in and near the complex were damaged by debris falling from the twin towers. Building 7 among them. What are you talking about?

              :rolleyes:
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8609034].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
                Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

                Well, lets think about this... you believe the government makes "fake Bin laden videos" right? That's what I always hear from the conspiracy kooks. So instead of crashing planes into a building, giving the MAJORITY of people inside the ability to escape, why not just blow it up and then air a fake bin laden video taking credit for it? That would have killed between 15,000 and 17,000 - many times more.

                If the point, as you say, was to create and instill dramatic fear ... what's more dramatic or scary than two buildings just randomly BLOWING UP at the same time, killing everyone inside, without any warning? I mean heck, that would freak me the hell out more than planes.

                The controlled demo theory just doesn't fly.



                See, that's what I am saying about you. What controlled demolition have you ever seen that starts with a big hole in the middle, collapsing from the center, with pieces falling off and hitting other buildings nearby? I challenge you to find ONE controlled demolition that works this way... I've seen all of the videos on YouTube that attempt to make this comparison, and none of them hit the mark.




                Um, what? All of the buildings I named in and near the complex were damaged by debris falling from the twin towers. Building 7 among them. What are you talking about?

                :rolleyes:
                Actually I'm not sure where I stand on the Bin Laden videos, that part sounds hokey to me. It makes more sense that he claims credit...if not just on general principle, and more so if he did mastermind the event.

                To me there was clear involvement with outside people...I just believe that our government either helped it along or was complicate in some capacity.

                ...and I was talking about those buildings too...I think I thought you were saying they fell also.

                then...your example at frame 2.33

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8609187].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Well, neither point is relevant because Bldg 7 didn't fall into it's footprint. There are aerial photos of it afterwards and it clearly fell to one side. These photos have been out for over a decade by the way. Plus, the building was leaning for hours with the sides bulging. I guess the leaning and bulging were all part of the conspiracy also? Plus, how they made that huge chunk of one of the twin towers fall out right onto Bldg 7 which was set up to explode/catch fire and needed that huge chunk of metal falling down just right to take out a huge section of the building to make it seem more real while deflecting attention away from the detonations! Amazing! Those guys were good!!

      Originally Posted by Doran Peck View Post

      So by your responses to my window example, Claude and Ron, you publically affirm the following:

      1. That you see no similarities whatsoever to how a building falls during controlled demolition, and any aspect of how building 7 fell.

      2. That buildings fall into their own footprint naturally, and that such happens frequently enough to be considered commonplace enough to quell even the smallest doubt.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607891].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lilc800
    I think it's a insane to say no theory is true and insane to say one theory is completely correct.

    Some people need to realize we don't live in a perfect society and people and groups have agendas rather good or bad. My thing about conspiracies is how when they are asked to government officials or anything like they aren't ever really answered that alone can make you think something is up.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607672].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8607802].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
      Originally Posted by Doran Peck View Post

      That's a pretty damning story. If it's true, every American should be demanding an investigation.
      Signature

      Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8608075].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
        Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

        That's a pretty damning story. If it's true, every American should be demanding an investigation.
        Yes Dennis, there are thousands of Americans demanding a real investigation.

        They're called conspiracy theorists
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8608989].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
    Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories - 911Truth.org

    While it talks about possible evidence of controlled demolition...The thing I really want to point out is the mysterious omission of credible witness testimonies in the commission report...you know...that book that claims to be the fullest account of events surrounding 911.

    There were numerous accounts of large areas of complete explosive destruction in the ground and basement levels of the twin buildings well before the towers fell...shouldn't these aspects of the overall equation be accounted for? In any crime scene are we just allowed to pick and choose the clues that we want? ...of course not....but that's what has happened with 911.

    This excerpt from the above link is especially alarming to me...

    Firefighter Louie Cacchioli, who was quoted earlier, testified in 2004 to members of the Commission’s staff. But, he reported, they were so unreceptive that he ended up walking out in anger. “I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room,” said Cacchioli. “They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn’t let me do that, I walked out.”58
    That Cacchioli’s experience was not atypical is suggested by janitor William Rodriguez, whose testimony was also quoted earlier. Although Rodriguez
    was invited to the White House as a National Hero for his rescue efforts on 9/11, he was, he said, treated quite differently by the Commission: “I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower.”59

    ...and for Claude...this might offer at least some food for thought as to how 1000 people could be kept quiet..."fear"

    Why, we may wonder, have the firefighters and medical workers not been speaking out? At least part of the reason may be suggested by a statement made by Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac. Having said that “there were definitely bombs in those buildings,” Isaac added that “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.”57
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8609090].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    Even your own example shows a clear lack of control in the demolition of the towers. Pieces falling from the top, hitting other buildings nearby, it's total chaos. If that was a controlled demolition, it was the worst in history... looks more like gravity doing it's thing. You guys are seeing what you want to see.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8609246].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      Even your own example shows a clear lack of control in the demolition of the towers. Pieces falling from the top, hitting other buildings nearby, it's total chaos. If that was a controlled demolition, it was the worst in history... looks more like gravity doing it's thing. You guys are seeing what you want to see.
      You asked for an example of controlled demolition originating in the center of the building. The example satisfies that element precisely.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8609316].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ronrule
        Originally Posted by Doran Peck View Post

        You asked for an example of controlled demolition originating in the center of the building. The example satisfies that element precisely.
        And your answer was a 3 story building? Come on man, at least try...
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8610045].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
          Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

          And your answer was a 3 story building? Come on man, at least try...

          mmkay


          The first 4, then again at 3.20, the one at 4.41 is interesting, just goes straight down like building 7. the first building at 5.50 does too...and we get a "kind of" at 6.50...and a really good example at 7.00 then the buildings at 7.30 with a spot on imitation of building 7. Then another center first demo at 7.40 ....and there are others if you care to drudge through it.

          One thing I did see a lot of in all those demos is explosions going off at the base of the buildings....a phenomenon that was also present in the 911 events...which was wholly disregarded in the clue equation of the commissions efforts.....and as we've seen by previous testimony...it was purposefully disregarded.

          but I know, I know...its ridiculous to take ALL the clues into consideration.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8610237].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KingArthur
            I believe that when the slam against "conspiracy theories" came out there was actually a conspiracy going on and in order to hide it, the liberal media followed their masters and put a negative spin on anything or anyone who would suggest that an actual conspiracy was going on. But I lost track of what that conspiracy was. It may have had something to do with Bill Clinton, but I am not quite sure.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8610254].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      Even your own example shows a clear lack of control in the demolition of the towers. Pieces falling from the top, hitting other buildings nearby, it's total chaos. If that was a controlled demolition, it was the worst in history... looks more like gravity doing it's thing. You guys are seeing what you want to see.
      Gravity is like lightning! Does it cause things to fall straight down, or lightning to create an even spark? ******YES******! *****IF***** all things are equal! Are they equal? RARELY! For lightning, light, humidity, temperature, gas, etc... affect things. For a collapsing structure, pressure, direction, resistance, etc... affect things. HECK, the weight of the plane ITSELF would cause a building to fall lopsided.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8610920].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author myob
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        HECK, the weight of the plane ITSELF would cause a building to fall lopsided.

        Steve
        ROFLMAO!

        The weight and impact of 200-ton airplanes had a negligible effect on the inertia of 500,000 ton structures. :rolleyes:
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8611161].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by myob View Post

          ROFLMAO!

          The weight and impact of 200-ton airplanes had a negligible effect on the inertia of 500,000 ton structures. :rolleyes:
          Well, if the floor really were 500,000 tons, get out ripplys, etc.... And YEAH, a bullet that doesn't even weigh an ounce has no impact on a 300 pound person. HECK, the citicorp building was not tiny and IT was almost destroyed by WIND! SORRY! A PEBBLE has an impact! GRANTED, a pebble couldn't change the falling to that degree. But HEY, what of citicorp? http://failures.wikispaces.com/Citicorp+Center They seemed to think that gradual shifting of a mere 400 ton weight could maintain the balance of the building. We ARE talking about a case where a few pounds pressure in the right area could shft degree a bit AND it was so high up that a few degrees could be SUBSTANTIAL.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8612033].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author myob
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            Well, if the floor really were 500,000 tons, get out ripplys, etc.... And YEAH, a bullet that doesn't even weigh an ounce has no impact on a 300 pound person. HECK, the citicorp building was not tiny and IT was almost destroyed by WIND! SORRY! A PEBBLE has an impact! GRANTED, a pebble couldn't change the falling to that degree. But HEY, what of citicorp? http://failures.wikispaces.com/Citicorp+Center They seemed to think that gradual shifting of a mere 400 ton weight could maintain the balance of the building. We ARE talking about a case where a few pounds pressure in the right area could shft degree a bit AND it was so high up that a few degrees could be SUBSTANTIAL.

            Steve
            Apparently, you missed my explanation yet again - phew!

            The perimeter support columns which surrounded the WTC towers contained and directed the collapse straight down. Both planes had negligible impact effect, and could not have tilted the "balance" of the structures. :rolleyes:

            Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

            This is going nowhere, you can't reason with crazy ... Claude was right to get out early.

            Oh look, my ride is here.
            This thread is a text-book case study of the voodoo science in CT, as referenced here. Enjoy the ride.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8614439].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by myob View Post

              Apparently, you missed my explanation yet again - phew!

              The perimeter support columns which surrounded the WTC towers contained and directed the collapse straight down. Both planes had negligible impact effect, and could not have tilted the "balance" of the structures. :rolleyes:



              This thread is a text-book case study of the voodoo science in CT, as referenced here. Enjoy the ride.
              NOPE! I heard you! I understand your claims. They just don't agree with what is there.

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8615184].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
              Originally Posted by myob View Post

              This thread is a text-book case study of the voodoo science in CT, as referenced here. Enjoy the ride.
              Myob; Why do you bother? I'm asking a serious question. Do you really think that logic, reason, the laws of physics will help here?
              Is it that you think you'll eventually get through?
              I gave up a while ago.

              But CT believers never give up. And nothing you say will penetrate their shield of belief.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8616029].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author myob
                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                Myob; Why do you bother? I'm asking a serious question. Do you really think that logic, reason, the laws of physics will help here?
                Is it that you think you'll eventually get through?
                I gave up a while ago.

                But CT believers never give up. And nothing you say will penetrate their shield of belief.
                If CT believers ever gave up, I would be out of business. But these same debunked arguments keep coming up over and over again, year after year.

                It's what some marketers would call an "evergreen" niche. New suckers are coming online every minute.

                And besides, like others like us, it is so much more relaxing than endless games of whack-a-mole.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8616409].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trader909
    Banned
    Tell me you are joking? This is not sane!

    Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories - 911Truth.org

    While it talks about possible evidence of controlled demolition...The thing I really want to point out is the mysterious omission of credible witness testimonies in the commission report...you know...that book that claims to be the fullest account of events surrounding 911.

    There were numerous accounts of large areas of complete explosive destruction in the ground and basement levels of the twin buildings well before the towers fell...shouldn't these aspects of the overall equation be accounted for? In any crime scene are we just allowed to pick and choose the clues that we want? ...of course not....but that's what has happened with 911.

    This excerpt from the above link is especially alarming to me...

    Firefighter Louie Cacchioli, who was quoted earlier, testified in 2004 to members of the Commission’s staff. But, he reported, they were so unreceptive that he ended up walking out in anger. “I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room,” said Cacchioli. “They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn’t let me do that, I walked out.”58
    That Cacchioli’s experience was not atypical is suggested by janitor William Rodriguez, whose testimony was also quoted earlier. Although Rodriguez
    was invited to the White House as a National Hero for his rescue efforts on 9/11, he was, he said, treated quite differently by the Commission: “I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower.”59

    ...and for Claude...this might offer at least some food for thought as to how 1000 people could be kept quiet..."fear"

    Why, we may wonder, have the firefighters and medical workers not been speaking out? At least part of the reason may be suggested by a statement made by Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac. Having said that “there were definitely bombs in those buildings,” Isaac added that “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.”57
    it's the first time i have had about this theory......guy you are F****NUTS! MAD!!!!!!!!!

    deary, deary me.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8609248].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
      Originally Posted by trader909 View Post

      Tell me you are joking? This is not sane!



      it's the first time i have had about this theory......guy you are F****NUTS! MAD!!!!!!!!!

      deary, deary me.
      ...can't make sense of what you are saying...sounds like you believe that eye witnesses made up their bad experiences with the Commission hearings?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8609310].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trader909
    Banned
    they are honestly trying to say the US government blew up their own buildings? My god....some people need to take their med's more often.


    Even your own example shows a clear lack of control in the demolition of the towers. Pieces falling from the top, hitting other buildings nearby, it's total chaos. If that was a controlled demolition, it was the worst in history... looks more like gravity doing it's thing.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8609261].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      Originally Posted by trader909 View Post

      ....some people need to take their med's more often.
      You think? Or is it those with an opposite view need to get weaned off theirs?

      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8614002].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trader909
    Banned
    good god.... so you demand a gull investigation to back up what you honestly blieve to be true anyway? And if the evidence comes back that doesn't support your crackpot theory, you'll simply call it a cover up. No win. it's madness.

    except that your neglecting to allow the possibility of the Perps wanting to instill the greatest amount of fear in the American People that they could achieve...the more dramatic the scarier. Instead you can't get past the minimum that they would have supposedly only "needed" to do to make it look like a terrorist attack.

    ...and to say it doesn't even look remotely like a demolition is just amazingly dense. This is a clear case of seeing what you want to see. I suggest going to Youtube and spend an hour looking at controlled demolition footage.

    ....and none of those adjoining buildings received damage from the falling debri? ...it was all building 7 's doing? ....Amazing.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8609277].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author David Maschke
    ]
    "Even though the mainstream media covers the Builderberg, they're still just a conspiracy theory"
    Signature

    I

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8610522].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
      I am surprised that this thread hasn't been closed yet?

      No doubt the dancing bananas are on their way! :rolleyes:


      But if this goes the same way as the man made GW bubble, then we need to take Conspiracy theorists comments seriously!


      Shane
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8610863].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DGFletcher
    Like people before me have said, there's a *huge* difference between "hmm. Given where technology is, and watching what past history has done, I wonder if the government may not actually be telling us the truth about scenario 1, 2, and 3" and "Aliens! Are! Everywhere!"

    My favorite answer to this was my dad's answer-- "Of course there are conspiracies! "Conspire" means to plan. Therefore, there is a conspiracy for us to have lunch today..."
    Signature
    Don't let a messed up computer mess up your business!

    Fix it with a Free Computer Security and Identity Protection Scan
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8611525].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Not quite right. Most definitions are similar to Merriam Webster's "to secretly plan with someone to do something that is harmful or illegal."

      Originally Posted by DGFletcher View Post

      "Conspire" means to plan. Therefore, there is a conspiracy for us to have lunch today..."
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8612579].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    This is going nowhere, you can't reason with crazy ... Claude was right to get out early.

    Oh look, my ride is here.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8612225].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trader909
    Banned
    Come on..it was clearly Elvis and the Area 51 Aliens flying those planes hey Sal?

    R.O.F.L. some of you guys are nuts!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8612395].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trader909
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8612401].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author LarryC
      Originally Posted by trader909 View Post

      LOL

      sadly many actually believe this sh** then try to come across as sane business people.

      "take your meds!!!"



      Many American clearly detest anything their Government says/does....everything is a conspiracy.

      Uni bomber alert. Strange
      Wow, what a witty, well researched point of view. "Take your meds!" Did you think that up all by yourself? With your eloquence and reasoning abilities you shouldn't be wasting your time talking to crazy conspiracy theorists, you should be running a prestigious think tank :rolleyes:

      Actually, that's the typical attitude of someone who gets all of their information from CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. Never question anything, label anyone who does as crazy.

      Sanity, as it's normally defined, is overrated anyway
      Signature
      Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8612928].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    Having lunch is one conspiracy I'll bite.
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8612584].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
      Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

      Having lunch is one conspiracy I'll bite.
      ...just don't eat your sandwich into the shape of a gun or you'll get in trouble
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8612659].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
        Originally Posted by Doran Peck View Post

        ...just don't eat your sandwich into the shape of a gun or you'll get in trouble
        ... or use a plastic butter knife in a school building to spread the mustard.
        Signature

        "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8614083].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author David Maschke
    I dug up a video of an old, white dude. Here he is saying we need to arm and help the Syrian rebels...


    Isn't that odd? My goodness... here's a news article saying the rebels are actually terrorists...

    Terrorist group fills power vacuum among Syria rebels - CNN.com

    But it's all just a conspiracy theory.
    Signature

    I

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8613492].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author David Maschke
    I think some of you anti-conspiracy theory fanatics have been over-medicating yourselves with fluoride. Here's the Harvard study that says so...

    Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ - Published in Federal Gov't Journal | Reuters

    That would explain why so many people can't get a grasp on reality
    Signature

    I

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8613858].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Oh yeah - people who believe in conspiracies are just f***ing nuts. Right.


    Signature

    Sal
    New PLR - Disaster prep duo report pkg: The Art of the Graceful Bug out, and Preparing Pets for a Disaster. - PM me for report details.
    Quality PLR Ebooks and Reports:
    Mind/Language - Weight, - Pet/Dog - Disaster - 2011 Earthquake Report - Hair Care

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8613934].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Riptor
      Here's another proven false flag/conspiracy FACT, some people think that governments would never kill their own people for profits... think again!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8613998].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    That JFK video heysal posted is telling! It was like an evil scifi flick. Except I believe I saw ALL of those say it about when they did. They represented the US and england. President, Secretary of state, prime minister! And YEAH, new world order, and united nations are among those things that were crazy conspiracies. Today, they are REALITY! And what of COMMUNISM? OK, I COULD say a LOT more, but it pretty much rules the UN, and thus the new world order. The marching orders and army for the NWO are from the UN!

    BTW there are NEW conspiracies that they have world wide meetings for. Some are FAR from secret. And they cover new plans that are now widely known and STILL done in semisecret!

    HECK, A group recently said that Indiana's old school grade was basically A+/A. WHY did they rate it? They compared it with their new plan where they said the NEW method would be B+/A. The two CERTIFIED teaching professionals they had are on record saying grade 12 will be taught to about the 6th/7th grade in reading, AT BEST. So WHY degrade things? They did it to have their chance at a $5BILLION lottery. Though they lost, I guess they feel they can't just reconsider.

    Supposedly almost HALF the US is already starting to degrade their schools. Indiana has done it only with history at this point, and only to the 2nd grade. About 2015, the plan is to do math and english. The rest of the US is due to follow soon. This is a WORLD WIDE plan though!

    I read about a REALLY sinister plan a few days ago, and I HAVE seen congress and YKW saying things in line with it. Of course, it just AUGMENTS something else they have been doing for a while.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8614267].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author David Maschke
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8617098].message }}

Trending Topics