Your favorite nutjob conspiracy theories

[kernow]

Dunno this was the 2nd cut, apparently the final one isn't free anymore.

*doesn't stop it being on torrents though probably mind you*

[crithit5000]

I've seen Final Cut on Youtube or Google video, it's still amazingly bad compared to the first two. The one I'm talking about is Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup (Final Cut apparently wasn't so final), which is supposed to be floating around already. I just can't wait for my jaw to drop at their stupidity and ridiculous claims.

[jpj]

delboy:

you may be interested to know that there was a street fighter documentary being filmed between 1998-2000 that covered a lot of the big tournaments and exhibitions between USA and Japan, titled Bang the Machine, whose master copies were being stored by the production company at WTC7. while a few copies float around unavailable to the geneal public, the masters were destroyed in the attack. as the USA was getting roundly spanked in all of these international matches, perhaps the terrorists, george bush, and silverstein are just the COVER UP; and the real culprits are alex valle and john choi in some grandiose convoluted plot to cover up their national street fighter shame...



or maybe a bunch of terrorists from the middle-east flew some planes into large buildings because they really fucking hate america. like a lot of middle-eastern people do.

this makes me think about religion in some ways. for some people, once they've given up on religion, you'd think they would believe in nothing. and it sometimes happens that they believe in near enough anything. one day it's mother nature and aura-cleansing. next day it's healing crystals and animal guardians.

and once you start getting into a habit of closing yourself off from the reasonable or widely accepted version, you enter a murky ground where everything in theory could be plausible. like a jewish billionaire deciding that the best method of getting this insurance money would be faking a terrorist attack that involved flying passenger aircrafts into skyscrapers. what would have happened if no debris landed on WTC7? how did he convince them to sacrifice their lives for that? must be a persuasive guy. and nobody ever had any linking evidence after all these years. maybe he has a paper shredder. what if the emergency services had managed to put out the fires? maybe he had a spare pack of matches

and just like religions, conspiracies start to form their own schisms. there are some who believe what hit the towers was a military jet that fired a rocket at the tower moments before collision. some people believe the plane itself was a giant missile. there are some who believe it was done by lasers from space (yes, seriously). and some who even believe that nothing hit the towers at all and it was all faked by TEH MEDIA!!! (cue a bulletmagnet moment), and it's nothing but computer trickery. some people even believe that the george bush administration managed to co-ordinate and do it ( ). and once you start "opening your mind to the possibility" of one conspiracy, it's a slippery slope, and the people who spread the 911 truth will readily admit they believe man didn't land on the moon, and area51 is full of aliens.

but the one thing conspiracy theorists definitely don't believe in is coincidences. the fact that out of all the shit that went on that day, the only thing people wanna talk about is WTC7 shows just how measly their argument has become now that virtually every other point they bring up has been thoroughly refuted (to death). and lloyd put it much better than me. WTC7 was an old building, that was partially crushed from debris, and was weakened to the point of collapse from fires exceeding 1000F that went on for hours. i've seen controlled demolitions, and that wasn't one.

can you accept that coincidences do happen...?

i'm satisfied because all the evidence supports what my common sense tells me. if this was a conspiracy, with all the planning, parties involved, politicians, every minute being played out on live TV, and the thousands of people that would be involved ... wake me up when there's something more interesting to talk about than "that building fell funny"

p.s. stop talking to those scientologists on goodge st

[DEL]

EDIT 20.08.11 - Yup, still updating - until I am proved wrong

1st vid on page: Remember Building 7
http://www.ae911truth.org/

&
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-27/9 ... -testimony

[jpj]

Mr DEL, while you are correct about the melting point of steel being +2700F, once you go past 1000F, the steel loses 50% of it's strength (or structural integrity if you prefer) and simply couldn't support it's own weight after the damage

[ncp]

the real culprits are alex valle and john choi in some grandiose convoluted plot to cover up their national street fighter shame...

We're doomed. o.sagat players are in control.

[jpj]

they still think jews did 9/11

[DEL]

Mr jpj wrote;

Mr DEL, while you are correct about the melting point of steel being +2700F, once you go past 1000F, the steel loses 50% of it's strength (or structural integrity if you prefer) and simply couldn't support it's own weight after the damage

Aah, now I like that one....

the steel loses 50% of it's strength

- You're starting to make more sense .
I'm still not convinced, but you're softening me up (if you'll forgive the pun).

Bring me some tacos, I'm settling in for the night.
Need to order up a new batch of Lordstar T's while I'm at it:-
on the front:
wtc7 Release the Conspiracy Ever
on the back:
wtc7 - WAKE UP AND SMELL THE THERMITE!

or

THERMITE: you either love it or hate it
http://www.kewego.com/video/iLyROoaftv2h.html

or

a pic of Thermite spewing out the lower levels of wtc4
and
Release the THERMITE Ever

mileage

[Skykid]

Skykid wrote;

911 is a treat for conspiracy theorists - it's just so rich in ambiguity. And that's the only thing I take from it: ambiguity, and the knowledge that no matter which side fires which stories, neither paint a picture of irrefutable truth. Not conspiracy films, not debunking films, and certainly not news reports. It remains one of the modern worlds greatest tragedies, and also the one we seem to know the least about.

That's enough for me to sit firmly on the fence.

It is perhaps wise to sit firmly on the fence on 9/11.

Wise indeed.

Although I love jpj like my own son, I do think it's unfair to suggest your views on the subject were in any way letting you down Del. On the contrary, although it's clear that you've been pretty taken with much of the conspiracy big hitters (and once you hear it from six different sources it becomes difficult to ignore) there is something in it somewhere that's worth holding on to for purposes of logic.
I would suggest anyone who out-rightly believes the media version of the 'truth' owes themselves a slap in the face for lack of sense. You never outright believe the media version of any truth, because there's money involved. Where there's money, there are always falsehoods - even in charity organisations.
I had a look at the 911 'debunking' sites that were linked on the last page, and as Kernow put it with regards to Loose Change, they made me chuckle too.
Not because they're incorrect, but because as arguments, they're still unsubstantiated. Or rather, they're as equally unsubstantiated as the conspiracy theories.
The site claims to be debunking the conspiracy theories one at a time. Well they'd better get a fucking move on, it's been nine years and they've only addressed a fraction of the hundreds of incongruous events surrounding 911.
Things like the movement of the stock exchange, building insurance and other financial mysteries prior to the day, and of course an all time favourite: where in the world is Osama Bin Laden? The worlds most advanced military nation seems to have no hope of tracking down this rogue felon as he flits between sand dunes down in the middle of the east.
Magic, demolition proof passports, trials with no convictions, complete absence of military support in the skies on the day, and a number of suspicious gaffes by senior members of government.

Yes, it's all padding; a pancake of sensationalism wrapped up in a treacle tart of intrigue and arousing mystery - but to this day the only hard fact is that two buildings fell down. That definitely happened.

My better judgement tells me not to judge the conspiracy theorists as nut jobs, because if they were presented with proper evidence in the first place they probably wouldn't cling to extremes.

Besides, bullshit smoke and mirrors have always existed amidst political turmoil. I'm still waiting to find out who actually shot JFK, aren't you?

[Stormwatch]

9/11 conspiracies are bullshit; Maddox said so, and Maddox is always right.

[Skykid]

9/11 conspiracies are bullshit; Maddox said so, and Maddox is always right.

Ha ha, that made me lol.

[adversity1]

I would suggest anyone who out-rightly believes the media version of the 'truth' owes themselves a slap in the face for lack of sense. You never outright believe the media version of any truth, because there's money involved. Where there's money, there are always falsehoods - even in charity organisations.

Then you should check out how much money is involved in Alex Jones' little media empire down in Texas. Then check out the cottage industry David Ray Griffin has made out of lying about 9/11. And how Richard Gage flies around the world via donations to his organization to spread the "truth".

I had a look at the 911 'debunking' sites that were linked on the last page, and as Kernow put it with regards to Loose Change, they made me chuckle too.
Not because they're incorrect, but because as arguments, they're still unsubstantiated. Or rather, they're as equally unsubstantiated as the conspiracy theories.

What debunking sites focus on is exposing the flawed logic in theories about explosive demolition, whether a missile hit the pentagon etc. They will probably not answer all your questions about 9/11. I imagine that would require reading a book, such as "Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon", or "Touching History". Since the people who want to be on the "fence" about the 9/11 terrorist attacks usually can't be bothered to read a book, let me recommend two documentaries National Geographic's just-released "Science and Conspiracy" (available via mininova) which tests conspiracy theorist's claims with scientific simulations, and the two BBC documentaries on conspiracy theories.

The site claims to be debunking the conspiracy theories one at a time. Well they'd better get a fucking move on, it's been nine years and they've only addressed a fraction of the hundreds of incongruous events surrounding 911.

No, what's actually true is that the people making these claims over the past 9 years have not bothered to do the research on whether or not what they're claiming is true.

Things like the movement of the stock exchange, building insurance and other financial mysteries prior to the day, and of course an all time favourite: where in the world is Osama Bin Laden?

The movement of the stock exchange and building insurance is mysterious to you?

Where in the world is Bin Laden? Where is Zawahiri? Where is Abdul Salam? Where is Hakeemullah Mehsud?

All this doesn't really matter to the 9/11 attacks because Sheikh Khalid Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, is currently in an American military prison. Other surviving members of the cell are also in custody. AFAIK, no one has proven that Bin Laden had any active role in the attacks or that he even needed to. More specifically it was the Al Queda network which enabled and helped fund the attacks. That network has been decimated in Afghanistan and Iraq and only survives in pockets of Pakistan.

Magic, demolition proof passports, trials with no convictions, complete absence of military support in the skies on the day, and a number of suspicious gaffes by senior members of government.

I believe two passports survived. Why is this so amazing? Should all the trials have convictions, or shouldn't they be fair?

Yes, it's all padding; a pancake of sensationalism wrapped up in a treacle tart of intrigue and arousing mystery - but to this day the only hard fact is that two buildings fell down. That definitely happened.

Three buildings fell down. One government facility was partially destroyed, and thousands lost their lives.

My better judgement tells me not to judge the conspiracy theorists as nut jobs, because if they were presented with proper evidence in the first place they probably wouldn't cling to extremes.

I'm afraid you have very poor judgment.

[Lloyd Mangram]

~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
Big difference there jpj.
You're right about the fires burning in WTC7 - 1000F to a max of 1400F. Still way way under the 2750F needed for your version of events to be credible.

Honestly, DEL, this is the kind of stuff that makes people lose patience with conspiracy theorists and well-intentioned but ill-informed fencesitters.

As jpj pointed out, steel doesn't have to become a molten liquid in order for structural failure to occur. It's actually pretty common knowledge that steel suffers a significant loss of strength at temps far below melting point, so for you to be dragging out the melting point of steel in an attempt to mount an argument, so many years after the event and after supposedly reading plenty of info on the subject... well, it makes me wonder what the hell have you been filling your head with all this time.

As for how I can be convinced the conspiracy theorists are talking bollocks - mainly I'm convinced they're talking bollocks when it comes to controlled demolition theories. It doesn't take a very great understanding of structural engineering and physics (just a little research will do - unless all the textbooks are lying) to understand how the towers fell. And as for building 7, unless everyone is lying about it being on fire for hours, and lying about it being a steel-framed building, and all the footage of the flames are in fact fake (which would be a pretty insanely huge conspiracy to pull off), then I'd say it's quite reasonable to accept that it experienced structural failure due to fire combined with some degree of damage from falling debris. On top of that, I've seen so many obviously flawed arguments presented again and again by conspiracy theorists, such as your 'it wasn't hot enough to melt steel' strawman argument, or the 'the towers fell at freefall speed' claim (which is proved false simply by watching the footage), that frankly the whole movement is left without a shred of credibility in my eyes.

When it comes to questions not about the mechanics of the collapse, but about issues like: a) How much did the government know in advance? b) Could they have done more to prevent it? c) Did they allow it to happen to further their own goals? - then my responses are a) How the hell would I know? b) Probably, but who knows? c) It seems unlikely, and I certainly hope that's not the case, and if they did then they're doing one hell of a job of keeping a lid on it even after a change of government... but again, how the hell would I know?

But I will say that if there was any underhandedness or incompetence on the part of the government in regards to prior awareness or in regards to their response to the hijackings, then the conspiracy theorists spouting the controlled demolition line (or better yet, the 'there were no planes!' brigade), couldn't have done the government a bigger favour if they tried.

[antron]

9/11 conspiracies are bullshit; Maddox said so, and Maddox is always right.

Ha ha, that made me lol.

do you always laugh at things that are over your head, or did you even click on the three links at the bottom?

there was always one thing about JFK that didn't sit right with me. this thread encouraged me to actually sit down and research it. we may never know why oswald did it, or who he did it for, but it is 99.9% clear he did do it alone. no one knows anything for sure, but you have to realize how improbable things become when faced with the facts, and facts are not always easy to understand.

please tell us who you think did it. i bet it's the same people who poisoned the wells that caused the great plagues.

[Ex-Cyber]

I had a look at the 911 'debunking' sites that were linked on the last page, and as Kernow put it with regards to Loose Change, they made me chuckle too.
Not because they're incorrect, but because as arguments, they're still unsubstantiated. Or rather, they're as equally unsubstantiated as the conspiracy theories.
The site claims to be debunking the conspiracy theories one at a time. Well they'd better get a fucking move on, it's been nine years and they've only addressed a fraction of the hundreds of incongruous events surrounding 911.

The problem with debunking cranks is that you can only truly debunk claims that have some kind of meaningfully factual interpretation. For example, Loose Change quoting someone who said "it sounded like a missile" is absurd, but you can't really debunk it beyond asserting that it's rather unlikely that they quoted someone who's in a position to know the difference between what a missile sounds like and what a crashing airplane sounds like. The "true believer" type (whether in conspiracy theories, religious doctrine, political/party doctrine, or whatever) can spew this kind of specious crap non-stop. This should not be considered a point in their favor.

[Skykid]

9/11 conspiracies are bullshit; Maddox said so, and Maddox is always right.

Ha ha, that made me lol.

do you always laugh at things that are over your head, or did you even click on the three links at the bottom?

The comment wasn't sarcastic. I laughed at it because it was funny (for the same reasons you would have laughed at it.) And yes, I read all the debunking material. It's not concrete.
I'm sure you're not a dick in real life so we'll just put it down to the fact that on the internet words can be misconstrued, especially when you're reading them with a preconception about the author.

Then you should check out how much money is involved in Alex Jones' little media empire down in Texas.

Alex Jones is full of shit.

Where is Zawahiri? Where is Abdul Salam? Where is Hakeemullah Mehsud?

Irrelevant. The lack of hard information and evidence surrounding those responsible is very little, and what's there is flaky at best. Either that or the British news corporations don't tell us much, or don't value the information enough to broadcast it. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, I'm simply saying it's odd.

I believe two passports survived. Why is this so amazing?

Because the other hundred and fifty passengers lost theirs in the fireball of jet fuel that burned for over an hour, melting steel within the structure.
If that's not amazing in itself, then I'm charting it up to amazingly lucky for the prosecuting authorities.

I'm afraid you have very poor judgment.

Your lack of willingness to accept that other factors may exist in such a complex and devastating political event mean that it is in fact your judgement that could do with a makeover.

For the record I don't consider any conspiracy theory to be factually correct, and I don't consider Loose Change to be some kind of bible. I just appreciate that some of the points raised amongst what is most likely 95% shit storm have valid question marks above them that are yet to be 'debunked' by any source other than, you guessed it, more internet truthers.

I already put forward my position on both conspiracy and debunking, and it's in neither camp. I wish people would read the posts first (properly) before getting all defensive.

[DEL]

EDIT 20.08.11 - Yup, still updating - until I am proved wrong

1st vid on page: Remember Building 7
http://www.ae911truth.org/

&
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-27/9 ... -testimony

Thought for the day:
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

[kernow]

I can't believe people don't think the moon landing was real.

But then theres millions of people who don't believe in evolution also.

There'll always be stupid people.

[Lloyd Mangram]

I'm still not at ease with the loss of steel strength argument causing the collapse of wtc7 though. Other tall buildings have burned heavily for much longer periods and none of them have ever collapsed before that fateful day.

These other buildings, were they steel-framed buildings, and did they really burn for longer than the 6+ hours that building 7 burned for, with the fires spreading virtually unchecked between many floors? Can you name these other buildings for me to check out?

1. You're right and a glancing blow by debris falling from a great height from one of the two main Towers hit the south facing top corner of wtc7, plus fires burning in wtc7 for a few hours before 5.21pm caused the supporting structural steel to weaken enough for the whole building to drop in 6.5 seconds.

Fires burning in WTC7 for a 'few hours'?

The North tower of the twin towers collapsed at 10:30 am. Debris from the north tower damaged building 7 and set it alight. Building 7 collapsed at 5:20 pm. That is one long 'few hours'.

And 'glancing blow'? Yeah, fair enough, I guess you could call it glancing, but a glancing blow from many tons of debris falling from a great height is a pretty bad news for a building, particularly when it leaves a ten-storey high gash in the face of the building and sets it on fire.

What's going on here, DEL? Downplaying the length of time WTC7 burned for... is this something you're doing deliberately to be disingenuous, or is it just wording you've picked up from your time spent on conspiracy sites?

edit: To be fair, maybe your idea of how many a 'few' represents differs to mine. I usually think 'few' as meaning around three, but I know at least one person who uses it when she means anything under seven, so if that's the case with you then please overlook my snarky tone on this point.

Lloyd wrote;

When it comes to questions not about the mechanics of the collapse, but about issues like: a) How much did the government know in advance? b) Could they have done more to prevent it? c) Did they allow it to happen to further their own goals? - then my responses are a) How the hell would I know? b) Probably, but who knows? c) It seems unlikely, and I certainly hope that's not the case, and if they did then they're doing one hell of a job of keeping a lid on it even after a change of government... but again, how the hell would I know?

Well there you go You say again and again "how the hell would I know?"
That's just my point.
You act like you're 100% certain on the Government & media's explanation of the events, but you're not certain of all the facts.

No, I act like I have no reason to believe that the towers or building 7 were brought down with explosives. I can't be 100% certain of this any more than I can be 100% certain that there is no god or that there is no invisible unicorn in my living room. But in the absence of any convincing or even vaguely plausible argument or evidence to support the claim that the towers and/or building 7 were brought down with planted explosives, I will continue to dismiss such claims as idle speculation.

There's one factor that runs through all the big three conspiracy nutjob theories The US Government is cited to be at the core of them. JFK, The Moon Landings and 9/11.

The trouble is, that's an empty observation. Of course the most widely popularised conspiracy theories are going to be about the powers that be. Conspiracy theories about Bob the garbage man or Rhonda the dogwalker aren't exactly going to gain a lot of traction in the minds of the people, are they?

That's not to say the government isn't involved in various shady deals and underhanded tactics, but trying to suggest some ominous significance by citing the three you've mentioned there doesn't really work - particularly when one of them is beyond laughable.

[DEL]

EDIT 20.08.11 - Yup, still updating - until I am proved wrong

1st vid on page: Remember Building 7
http://www.ae911truth.org/

&
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-27/9 ... -testimony

[Lloyd Mangram]

Oh and here you go Lloyd, as requested:
http://www.wtc7.net/buildingfires.html
& another in Beijing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwV5amOx ... re=related

WARNING: A LONG POST APPROACHES!



OK, that's interesting. That site points out the 1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia as a fire that raged for 18 hours in a steel-frame building.

But there are a few points to bear in mind:

1) The One Meridian Plaza fire started on the 22nd floor and spread to the 30th floor, where it was extinguished by the automatic sprinkler system. That's 8 floors affected.

Meanwhile, according to the NIST intermim report on WTC7, fires in WTC7 were observed at various times on floors 6-8, 11-14, 19-22, 29, 30. That's a total of 13 floors affected, and there may have been other floors affected by fire that weren't observed. Now maybe the NIST report is a bunch of lies, but there's plenty of video footage to help back up their claims, plus the reports from the firefighters themselves.

2) Apparently the firefighters were following the One Meridian blaze as it progressed. By the time they abandoned the fight, they had the fire under control on the 22nd-24th floors, while it continued to make its way upwards from floors 25 and 26. This is a different situation to WTC7, which had several fires burning at different heights. Is that significant? Maybe. I'll leave that to the experts.

3) The reason why the firefighters pulled out of the One Meridian Plaza building was because "Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was the possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors." This is info is taken from the United States Fire Administration's report on the One Meridian Plaza fire (bold added by me). So in other words, they pulled out because of the high likelihood of a collapse due to fire - a real possibility in that kind of situation.




The other fire mentioned on the site you linked to is the "1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3-1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower."

3.5 hours... 4 floors. You can see what I'm getting at here.


The site goes on to refer to experiments conducted by the British Steel and the Building Research Establishment were conducted in "a simulated, eight-story building" in which "despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).

Again, I'll leave that to the experts, but offhand you have to wonder if a fire in a simulated eight-storey building compares to multiple fires in a real 47-storey building.


Finally, the site you linked to claims that "in extensive fire tests of steel frame carparks conducted by Corus Construction in several countries, measured temperatures of the steel columns and beams, including in uninsulated structures, never exceeded 360ºC." Their link to their source doesn't work, but either way, surely a fire in a steel-frame carpark is sufficiently different to a 47-storey office block to make you wonder about the relevance of those tests. Bear in mind carparks are usually much more open than office buildings, so you would assume there would be a lot less trapped heat. You would also expect there to be far less combustibles material in a carpark.



I had a quick look at some info regarding the building in the youtube vid you linked to. That strikes me as a more effective (and dramatic!) example. But one thing that's immediately apparent is that it's an unusual looking building. How much consideration should be given to its different design when trying to compare it to WTC7? I don't know - another one for the experts. Anyway, it burned for 5 hours. Not a bad effort. But then, unlike WTC7, it didn't have any structural damage beforehand. Plus it was basically an empty building as the construction wasn't quite completed. Would this mean that it contained less combustible material? Seems likely. Is that relevant? Dunno. Still, out of the buildings mentioned, it seems to be the best example as the whole fricking building went up in flames!

But then, even if you could find a steel-framed building that was closer to WTC7 in terms of design, that had structural damage beforehand, and that burned for as many hours etc etc, and yet didn't fall down, what would that prove? Different buildings, different flaws, different situations.

And lets not forget the 2005 Windsor Tower Madrid fire, in which the steel framed parts collapsed, leaving the reinforced concrete core standing. Let's also not forget the various smaller steel-framed buildings that have collapsed (something to bear in mind when reading the claims made by that site you linked to regarding those "simulated, eight-story building" experiments, or those carpark test fires.)

As a starting point, check out this for more info on steel-frame collapses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk (Yeah, it's a youtube vid, but you can always google for more info, right?)

I can't believe how many words I've typed in this thread! Too much hard work. The government doesn't pay me enough for this sh- OOPS!!!

[Ex-Cyber]

I don't think anyone can seriously doubt that some ass-covering went on in some of the official explanations of 9/11, but it seems to have been very reactive and territorial, i.e. individual agencies and officials were mostly scrambling to say "don't blame me". The most infamous example is probably Condoleeza Rice's "I don't think anybody could have predicted" statement, which led to "nobody could have predicted" becoming a favorite bit of sarcasm in the lefty blogs (e.g. "nobody could have predicted" the mortgage collapse, or that hardcore conservatives would try to smear Obama with ridiculous made-up scandals, or that some Republican senators would oppose a health care bill regardless of its actual contents, etc.). To put it another way, it seems like there were a bunch of little cover-ups, but not one big/organized cover-up.

[DEL]

EDIT 20.08.11 - Yup, still updating - until I am proved wrong

1st vid on page: Remember Building 7
http://www.ae911truth.org/

&
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-27/9 ... -testimony

[antron]

DEL, SKykid,

Please tell us who you think did it.

[DEL]

^Islamic terrorists.

EDIT 20.08.11 - Yup, I was being ironic.
still updating - until I am proved wrong

1st vid on page: Remember Building 7http://www.ae911truth.org/

&
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-27/9 ... -testimony

Look past your Patriotism and try to explain to yourself how WTC 7 collapsed (with the core going first) onto its footprint in less than 7 secs.

[jpj]

just to be clear, i didn't mean anything i said towards you Mr.DEL to be insulting. just think you have an over-active imagination

and much love for skykid as always (although you are illustrating my point about coincidences and how infectious conspiracies can become)

great posts again from lloyd

can i get any takers on my sagat theory...?

[Skykid]

and much love for skykid as always (although you are illustrating my point about coincidences and how infectious conspiracies can become)

Yes, I'm in total agreement with you man. At no point did I ever commit that I believed either conspiracy or debunking, and I appreciate how even the most retarded crusades can be infectious.

DEL, SKykid,

Please tell us who you think did it.

Who knows mate, why the hell are you asking us?

For all I know, it could've been a bunch of third world muslim holiday-makers with extensive experience in flying full-size passenger aircraft with a rain-man style photographic memory of the United States and its most famous city.

Who do you think did it?

[antron]

Who knows mate, why the hell are you asking us?

For all I know, it could've been a bunch of third world muslim holiday-makers with extensive experience in flying full-size passenger aircraft with a rain-man style photographic memory of the United States and its most famous city.

Who do you think did it?

why am I asking you? because you pretend to know more about this than experts in government or the private sector. you hand wave evidence presented by thousands of scientists (like NIST). have you ever had a college level physics course in your life (or studied enough on your own to pass one)

i think the people who did it are the same one's who claimed to have done it. the guys with the money flowing to them from all over the Arab world to carry out such things.

you imply conspiracy but then suggest third world muslim as the culprits. that makes no sense. you are hiding something.

[Skykid]

Who knows mate, why the hell are you asking us?

For all I know, it could've been a bunch of third world muslim holiday-makers with extensive experience in flying full-size passenger aircraft with a rain-man style photographic memory of the United States and its most famous city.

Who do you think did it?

why am I asking you? because you pretend to know more about this than experts in government or the private sector.

When did I?

you hand wave evidence presented by thousands of scientists (like NIST).

Where?

have you ever had a college level physics course in your life (or studied enough on your own to pass one)

No, what have I said that suggests I might need one?

i think the people who did it are the same one's who claimed to have done it. the guys with the money flowing to them from all over the Arab world to carry out such things.

That's fine, and you might be right. You might be wrong too. I wouldn't expect you to be so bold as to believe you actually know the entire truth?

you claim conspiracy but then suggest third world muslim as the culprits.

Did I? When? I hadn't realised I'd put my eggs in one basket at any point?

you are hiding something.

You got me, I'm an Islamic terrorist.

Antron, I think you're reading some other guys posts man, I never said or claimed any of that. Best to backtrack, re-read, understand, breathe sigh of relief, enjoy.

[antron]

And yes, I read all the debunking material. It's not concrete.

you are on the fence because you want to be on the fence. i want to know why you want to be.

no one really knows anything. Law of Physics are the things that specifically cannot be proven. if you knew enough to even understand the debunking material you would know this already.