Your favorite nutjob conspiracy theories

[Gozer]

A friend of mine talks about this all the time.

Reptilians are real.

Proof!

[antron]

I personally subscribe to the one about Bush Jr. being a genius who invaded Iraq to stop an ancient UFO buried under Baghdad.

he was stopping Gog and Magog (for real):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... eorge-bush

[stuminator]

I always thought this was pretty strange.

[Stormwatch]

[DEL]

adversity1 wrote;

I have no favorite conspiracy theories, for the most part I hate them all. I wish people would simply research what the fuck they're saying.

Especially with regards to 9/11.

Alright, just give me a believable explanation as to how World Trade Centre 7 collapsed on its footprint that day?
Without being hit

[jonny5]

adversity1 wrote;

I have no favorite conspiracy theories, for the most part I hate them all. I wish people would simply research what the fuck they're saying.

Especially with regards to 9/11.

Alright, just give me a believable explanation as to how World Trade Centre 7 collapsed on its footprint that day?
Without being hit

it was da firez
they burn very hot....building melt...fall down go boom

[ncp]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net ... 911_morons

[mr_m0nks]

This thread and its various links have just wasted nearly an hour of my life


I HATE YOU ALL!!

[kennyrh]

I've got a conspiracy theory all of my own . . .

. . .My brain is linked up to a machine that is feeding me totally fictional data about the world around me and I'm actually in some sort of comatose state. This site and all of you here are imaginary as is everything else in this fucked up reality.

It's the ONLY explanation . . .

[jpj]

that's called solipcism, and ironically is quite common

[undamned]

Moon landing was faked theoreticians are great too.

You stole mine!

Like say, the resurrection of a dead person three days later.

Well, that depends on which side of the coin your on. There's conspiracy theories for Jesus' resurrection like the "swoon" and "stolen body" theories. And of course there's the most authoritative, "I wasn't there so it didn't happen" theory.
-ud

[antron]

I've got a conspiracy theory all of my own . . .

. . .My brain is linked up to a machine that is feeding me totally fictional data about the world around me and I'm actually in some sort of comatose state. This site and all of you here are imaginary as is everything else in this fucked up reality.

It's the ONLY explanation . . .

that's not near as far fetched as the idea that your body can violate the Law of Conservation of Energy, which the Wachowski brothers have obviously never fucking heard of.

I always thought this was pretty strange.

that is awesome.

[adversity1]

adversity1 wrote;

I have no favorite conspiracy theories, for the most part I hate them all. I wish people would simply research what the fuck they're saying.

Especially with regards to 9/11.

Alright, just give me a believable explanation as to how World Trade Centre 7 collapsed on its footprint that day?
Without being hit

I wouldn't do that, because it didn't collapse into its own footprint. This building is called Fiterman hall and it was massively damaged during the collapse of building 7.

[DEL]

adversity1 wrote;

I wouldn't do that, because it didn't collapse into its own footprint. This building is called Fiterman hall and it was massively damaged during the collapse of building 7.

I was asking about how WTC7 collapsed, not Fiterman Hall.
All I want is a believable explanation as to how WTC7 collapsed?

As you know, no skyscraper had ever collapsed from fires or plane collisions before that day. Then three collapsed on that day.
I won't say its odd, I'll say its convenient.

The owner took out insurance on the whole complex three weeks before the event, putting in a clause for the right to redevelop the site should it be destroyed.
Conveniently the whole site was razed to the ground in one day. He picked up his billions of insurance payout without fuss and he has indeed redeveloped the site. All very smooth.
You are aware the site was losing money for years prior to 9/11? Many floors not rented/ large upkeep costs.

The word 'convenient' pops up all over the place when you look at the other major conspiracy theories, but I won't go into that now because I'm still very curious as to how WTC7 dropped that day .
To be honest, I wouldn't be questioning 9/11 if WTC7 hadn't conveniently collapsed that day. I would have gone with the official line that load failure caused the concertina collapse of the two towers that were struck by the planes. Terrorists do exist in the World and they may well have been the ones responsible for trying to blow me up on my way to work on 7th July 2005 (I was 10 minutes late on the Tube - Thank God).
But....WTC7 collapsing has me questioning the whole 9/11 thing.
Set me straight adversity1, give me a good explanation and I'll blame it on the terrorists.

[Lloyd Mangram]

Alright, just give me a believable explanation as to how World Trade Centre 7 collapsed on its footprint that day?
Without being hit

Without being hit by what? You know it was damaged by falling debris, right?

I was asking about how WTC7 collapsed, not Fiterman Hall.
All I want is a believable explanation as to how WTC7 collapsed?

This might help: http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
and this: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

As you know, no skyscraper had ever collapsed from fires or plane collisions before that day. Then three collapsed on that day.
I won't say its odd, I'll say its convenient.

How many steel frame skyscrapers had been hit by a jet plane loaded with fuel prior to 9/11?

Prior to 9/11, how many steel frame skyscrapers had been left to burn for 6-7 hours while also having significant damage to one side of the building, particularly the lower floors?

Of course, before 9/11 there were cases like the Windsor tower in Madrid, which was partly steel frame, partly reinforced concrete, and which burned for many hours. And what happened? The steel frame part collapsed. (OMG, demolition!)

Hmm.

[DEL]

Lloyd Mangram wrote;

How many steel frame skyscrapers had been hit by a jet plane loaded with fuel prior to 9/11?

Prior to 9/11, how many steel frame skyscrapers had been left to burn for 6-7 hours while also having significant damage to one side of the building, particularly the lower floors?

Of course, before 9/11 there were cases like the Windsor tower in Madrid, which was partly steel frame, partly reinforced concrete, and which burned for many hours. And what happened? The steel frame part collapsed. (OMG, demolition!)

Hmm.

Yes yes, but I'm not talking about the two main towers that were hit by the planes. You may be right there. I already stated in my last post that I could believe the load bearing failure theory as to the collapse of the two main Towers. BUT I'm questioning the WTC7 collapse. It was damaged by falling debris- yes I agree, but to the extent of collapse?!
Even Wikipedia states;

The collapse of 7 World Trade Center is remarkable because it was the first known instance of a tall building collapsing primarily as a result of uncontrolled fires

Wikipedia also states;

7 World Trade Center housed SEC files relating to numerous Wall Street investigations, as well as other federal investigative files. All the files for approximately 3,000 to 4,000 SEC cases were destroyed. While some were backed up in other places, others were not, especially those classified as confidential. Files relating Citigroup to the WorldCom scandal were lost. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission estimates over 10,000 cases will be affected. The Secret Service had its largest field office, with more than 200 employees, in WTC 7 and also lost investigative files. Says one agent: “All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building.”

Uh Oh - Convenience again
Wikipedia also states;

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories say that the building collapses on September 11, including that of building seven, were the result of controlled demolition.[55][56][57][58] The draft NIST report rejected this hypothesis, as the window breakages and blast sound that would have occurred if explosives were used were not observed. The use of thermate instead of explosives is discarded by NIST on the basis that it is unlikely the necessary 100 pounds of thermate for each steel column could have been planted without being discovered.

So I'm wrong. I apologize.

[DEL]

^Except for the fact that the odds against the whole site being razed to the ground in one day are high to say the least.
Its just all too convenient for WTC7 to collapse, so that Silverstein could claim his billions and redevelop the whole site with ease.

Oh and he didn't say;

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

did he?

No nooo, that would mean......

Hmm

[jpj]

delboy, you're letting yourself down man

http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4

lots of good fact-based explanations here, if you care to check it out.

[Damocles]

Favorite? I wouldn't call it that, but the JFK Magic Bullet and second shooter ideas infuriate me.

[BulletMagnet]

A new fave for me - Obama telling kids to stay in school (in a speech he hasn't even given yet) is a stealthy equivalent to the Hitler Youth.

[Dragoforce]

A new fave for me - Obama telling kids to stay in school (in a speech he hasn't even given yet) is a stealthy equivalent to the Hitler Youth.

My god in heaven. That was so stupid it's not even funny.

[chempop]

Oh boy I don't know where to start I'm pretty keen on the whole fluoride mind control conspiracy. Back when I was a kid in elementary school they made everyone swish it in their mouths right before we did the pledge of allegiance... lucky for me I didn't have to (probably because I took fluoride pills at home..), but still I'm fairly certain that it is a brainwashing technique (not too difficult to find strong evidence).

[Lloyd Mangram]

Yes yes, but I'm not talking about the two main towers that were hit by the planes. You may be right there.

Fair enough, but you did say, "As you know, no skyscraper had ever collapsed from fires or plane collisions before that day. Then three collapsed on that day." < Bold added by me. So I was addressing that remark as well.

Now as far as your building 7 theory goes, maybe it does seem convenient to Silverstein and various business interests that the building went down. But then what? That means they must have done it? They must have planted hundreds of pounds of explosives right under the noses of the very government bodies that were investigating them? In a place where "The Secret Service had its largest field office, with more than 200 employees", they managed to plant all these explosives - explosives that would remain unaffected by a fire burning for hours, just waiting for this so-called 'pull it' moment?

So much of the 'they must have rigged it' stance depends on the fact that the building fell roughly into its own footprint (bear in mind it didn't actually fall as neatly as many people claim - as adversity pointed out already, it managed write off Fiterman Hall as it came down). Fundamental to the whole 'truth' movement is the flawed logic of 'If it looks kind of like a controlled demolition, then it MUST be a controlled demolition, period.' Well, I guess there's a lesson to be learned there. If I ever want to rig a building to fall, I'll make sure it comes down in a way that fits more with Joe Public's conception of how a building should collapse due to damage+fire - maybe make one half topple over, then the other half come down a bit later. Man, no one would have thought of that in the first place when concocting their nefarious demolition plans.

Oh and he didn't say;

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

did he?

No nooo, that would mean......

Well one thing it means is that you probably didn't bother looking at the second link I posted.

Here it is again: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

The argument that Silverstein's use of the words 'pull it' means he was talking about bringing the building down with explosives is ludicrous. I mean, the guy's meant to be instrumental in this supposed plot to demolish the building, and yet while being interviewed in front of the camera he just frankly admits that they 'pulled it' in the sense of bringing it down? Errr... Whoops! And then his later clarification that he was talking about a team of firefighters (which fits with the fact that he was talking to the fire chief about already suffering a terrible loss of life) is dismissed outright in favour of this ridiculous 'AHA! He slipped up!' conviction. Did he forget that it was meant to be a big secret? Did no one tell him to keep mum?

One of the things that bugs me about so-called truthers is thay so often they say things like "I just want a simple explanation for how yadda yadda yadda", and then when explanations are offered, they either ignore them (probably don't even read them) or say "That's NOT simple!" Sometimes I get the impression that the only time they encounter any explanation is when it's presented in an inaccurate or incomplete form on a conspiracy site, existing there only to serve as a foil for various points in the conspiracy theory.

[adversity1]

did he?

No nooo, that would mean......

Hmm

This is seriously some 2005 internet scrub shit right here.

[Ed Oscuro]

that's called solipcism, and ironically is quite common

^ this

Also, the old theory was that WTC 7 fell because supporting pillars, which faced one of the towers, got scooped out by falling debris; the report concluded that the burning debris was what really started the collapse after it triggered fires (as mentioned) leading to the failure of a critical support inside the building. This was a giant office building loaded with combustibles, after all. ffs this is pretty simple stuff

[Skykid]

delboy, you're letting yourself down man

http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4

lots of good fact-based explanations here, if you care to check it out.

I like to take a philosophical approach to conspiracy theories. I think there's value in all of them, no matter how ludicrous. If anything, they're a window on people and how they think, and its important to be able to find some rationality in something however irrational, just so you're not entirely conditioned to accept one version of the truth - the one that you're expected to believe first time.

Personally I walk away from 95% of conspiracy elements, but hang onto 5% worth of detail that intrigues me. We did land on the Moon, Stanley Kubrick probably wasn't murdered, I don't really believe that members of the Royal family are shape-shifting reptiles, and the Illuminati is probably not represented today by ministers of power that sacrifice babies.
But to sap something from the wreckage: bloodlines in politics and powers in industry do have an intertwining history, much of which finds its way to the white house or to parliament. It doesn't mean they're plotting the end of the world as we know it, but it perhaps means your vote counts for less than you thought it did.

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.

[DEL]

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.

I was voicing only one query all along How did WTC7 collapse on that day?
I still find it odd. ( EDIT:- http://www.ae911truth.org/ - watch the Vancouver interview on the left side. )

Can jpj, adversity1 and Lloyd Mangram be absolutely sure there was nothing fishy about the events that day?
Skykid says its "the one we seem to know the least about."
Personally, I'm not sure either way - maybe jpj, adversity1 and Lloyd are right, but I'm certainly keeping my mind open as to the truth, should it eventually be revealed. If I'm wrong, I'll say again, "I'm wrong" and add apologies for good measure .
You've looked at the debunking facts and found them to be solid enough for your minds.
I'm joining Skykid on the fence.

adversity1 - The internet scrub is the one who repeatedly doesn't answer my question.

[DEL]

Hey, let's argue about the Lady Diana tragedy

How did a professional driver crash out a car so completely at just 100mph

[kernow]

erm he was drunk O_o

I watched loose change out of boredom earlier, it made me chuckle more than anything.

[crithit5000]

I watched loose change out of boredom earlier

Oh god, is the new version available on the internets yet? I always get a chuckle out of those douchebags, and apparently this new cut is all professional and shit.