[Closed] What's your favourite conspiracy theory?

Ooh look, page 5!

@Nedrapier

"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State." -Josph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister

Thought this was a press release from the Chinese Government when I first read it.

I quite like the theory that putting pieces of tin foil up around the house improves wi-fi reception. Not sure if that is a conspiracy quite so much as a great practical joke that went viral.

However I do strongly believe that Elvis is still alive. I have no evidence, just faith.

Has nobody mentioned the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and its modern-day conspiracy theory counterpart, that 9/11 was a Jewish plot and no Jews went into work at the WTC on 9/11?

i was going to mention the jewish thing, initially about the whole 'the holocaust was made up by the jews' but then the subject turned to 9/11 and i figured i'd sit back and let people get in a tiz about it all.

everything i learnt about jews i learnt from southpark, even TJ would agree on how reliable the information is.

i was going to mention the jewish thing, initially about the whole 'the holocaust was made up by the jews' but then the subject turned to 9/11 and i figured i'd sit back and let people get in a tiz about it all.

everything i learnt about jews i learnt from southpark, even TJ would agree on how reliable the information is.

Then you believe in Mr Hankey the Christmas Poo?

I want to believe!

I read an article a few years ago discussing what to do with the sites and artefacts of the nazi death camps. Some have been kept but of course are falling to pieces, and any restoration will play into the hands of the holocaust deniers and conspiracy theorists "that wall was clearly built in 1980 it's a zionist conspiracy to justify the state of Israel" etc.

Quite sad, what do you do with a warehouse full of human hair ? It is evidence on one level. Destroy it, and there is no evidence. Maintain it and be accused of faking the whole thing.

Suggestions on google when you type in Barack Obama is...

An alien
A cactus
The Antichrist
Your new bicycle
A Muslim
Irish
A clone
A terrorist
An Illuminati
A communist
A freemason
A homosexual
A homophobe

and so on, and so on..

sounds like the inspiration for camo16's new book realman!

sounds like the inspiration for camo16's new book realman!

Wha-ha-hat? I have to shoehorn in a misunderstood President, too?

he's not misunderstood he's a homosexual homophobe! google said so.

Phil - Family Guy is also a rich source of accurate information about our Jewish cousins.

he's not misunderstood he's a homosexual homophobe! google said so

Ah right. Got it. Let the shoehorning commence!

The new character, then, is an alien antichrist cactus with homosexual tendencies and an aptitude for homophobic epithets.

He's going to be quite a complex character, which means the book's going to work on many levels. Excellent.

** rubs hands together and s****s **

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#conclusion

Which is ironic, as my jewish cousins are a good source of information about Family Guy.

Some have been kept but of course are falling to pieces, and any restoration will play into the hands of the holocaust deniers

Flight 93 was definitely brought down by the us government to avoid another strike - the story about the passengers taking over the flight was fabricated to give the country something to be proud of.

M6TTF - Member

Flight 93 was definitely brought down by the us government to avoid another strike - the story about the passengers taking over the flight was fabricated to give the country something to be proud of.

Source?

Me - it's my conspiracy theory

Fair enough. Honest. I like it.

What do you know about demolition to say that it's untrue? More than the various experts on demolition of large buildings, architects, scientists, engineers etc who have all presented their own theories that the towers' collapse was brought about by a controlled demolition?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Ten-Enduring-Myths-About-the-US-Space-Program.html?device=iphone&c=y&device=ipad&c=y

roadies are the new masons.. I've seen them all doing those funny little hand signals down by their hip..

I passed a gent out for a stroll on the moors with his lady friend the other morning.. I smiled and they smiled and then the fella gave it one of those little roadie signals.. 😯

Well.. I hotfooted it out of their giving frantic V-signs and bemoaning the lot of the working class as I went..

I think this conclusively proves that all roadies are illuminati lizards.. from their garish clothing I would hazard a guess at chameleons prbably..

Enquiring minds want to know.

Really? Where are they then?

jolly well have not seen many on here, I must say...

jolly well have not seen many on here, I must say...

that I will conspire to have a calm and nice week with others. zen kev 🙂

I knew toys woon't be able to resist. 😆

For someone who thinks he's 'right', you seem awfully keen to prove others wrong, Toys (even though you've still not actually proven your own claims to be correct really) . Whassamatter; teeny tiny bit of doubt in your mind, is there? Thought so. If you were so sure, you woon't bother wasting time with crankpots like me now, would you? 😉

It's ok mate; we none of us know the [i]truth[/i]. Just that some of us admit it, whiles others just pretend that they do...

yawn. elf you are an enormous plank.

yawn. elf you are an enormous prick.

Yay! He's resorted to personal insults! 😆

I win!

I love you too, Sweetcheeks.

You seem tired. Time for bed, perhaps?

X

Yay! He's resorted to personal insults!

Elfinsafety - Member

Enquiring minds want to know.

Really? Where are they then?

jolly well have not seen many on here, I must say...

don't worry about it elf. just relax.

what and this isn't?

No; it's generally condescending rather than personally insulting. 🙂

[img] [/img]

I'm nice and relaxed Kev (unlike some others). Just having a bit of pizza actually. Too hot to sleep here.

whatever ye ****. just imagine them thar hilz n stuff. gonna be a good week mate Ice cream all the way

Flight 93 was definitely brought down by the us government to avoid another strike - the story about the passengers taking over the flight was fabricated to give the country something to be proud of.

That's a good example. I believe plenty of people saw the plane come down, and nobody thought it had been shot down. Then there's the phone calls to the families and the cockpit voice recorder. I suppose the recorder could be faked, and eyewitnesses are unreliable, but I don't see how you'd get round the passenger's families. And then there'd be the people actually involved in shooting it down who all need to keep quiet, and the need for somebody to give the order, which I doubt anyone would have been prepared to do. To my mind the passengers having a go is far more plausible.

All of these "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy theories hinge on vast numbers of people keeping schtumm about their plot to kill thousands of people who they regarded as "their own".

The WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a similar sized plane to those which hit them. Fully laden with fuel. The planes that did hit them were not - so I have read - fully laden as they were on shorter domestic journeys. I have read this from what appear to be genuine and professional sources on line. I accept that these sources may not be accurate, however, assuming they are, then the towers were designed to survive the impact. Of course, it could be possible the design calculations were flawed - devil's advocate here - and there are equally professional and expert appearing resources which claim the towers were not designed to withstand the impact. Someone is right and someone is wrong.

However, a catastrophic failure of the steel leading to collapse doesn't really explain to a layman (i.e. me!) why all the concrete in the building turned to dust.

Of course, we are used to seeing video of controlled demolition of no more than 20 or so storeys in this country of buildings which have been stripped bare over weeks or even months so I appreciate a 110 storey tower falling which has not been prepared for demolition may not display the same characteristics we are used to seeing in terms of the resulting rubble, etc. however it looks suspicious to so many people IMHO because they both fall in such a regular and virtually identical way to each other.

The planes hit at different heights, different angles, and at different points on the building and yet the structures both proceeded to fall down in almost the exact same way. The fires would have been decreasing in intensity as they spread because all the fuel would have been burnt off. If they burned at over 700 or 800 degrees C or whatever was required to melt the steel then how come people one or two floors above could be seen waving for help right up until the collapses? If the fires were that intense as we are lead to believe then they would have spread rapidly and you would have seen flames licking out the building. The link I posted shows examples of other far more severe high rise fires and the entire buildings are engulfed within minutes.

Watching newsreel footage of war zones from WWII to the present day, you can see how buildings are destroyed by high speed impacts from missiles and subsequent fires - there is always some part of the building left behind due to irregular collapse i.e. the collapse emanates from the impact zone. The footage you can see on you tube makes it look like the twin towers collapses started much higher above the impact areas.

I also find it unusual that there is such limited footage of the strike at the Pentagon. Wouldn't that area of the city be full of people and tourists at that time of day? Granted, not quite a lower Manhattan but I would have expected someone to have captured footage of a jet approaching the area on a collision course. And that's before you get into the pilot skill involved in being able to hit that building where it was alleged.

Notwithstanding all of the above - four planes hi-jacked by stanley knife wielding nutters? come on!!! bet the PLO wish they'd come up with that one in the 70s.

But what do I know? If you think it is unbelievable that Americans would be complicit in the act of murder of their own citizens then you need to do some digging - chemical and biological warfare experiments have been conducted on numerous occasions post WWII on whole towns.

Incidentally, those of you getting ripped into the guy for not swallowing the official line - what do you think about the follow-up Anthrax attacks?

could/would you build a structure with a fail safe demolition system built in ? maybe to prevent some kind of "domino" effect.

I also find it unusual that there is such limited footage of the strike at the Pentagon. Wouldn't that area of the city be full of people and tourists at that time of day?

Are you, in fact, unfamiliar with the location of the Pentagon if you're asking that question?

I was, as it happens, just a couple of kilomteres away from the Pentagon at the time. Of course, that might suggest to you that I am some sort of plant that They have sent to spread disinformation.

Notwithstanding all of the above - four planes hi-jacked by stanley knife wielding nutters? come on!!! bet the PLO wish they'd come up with that one in the 70s.

Remember also that the objective of the PLFP/RAF/JRA etc hijackings was usually to obtain prisoner exchanges and/or money, not to kill civilians.

I'm not losing sleep over that Niburu Collision malarky

Not while Bruce Willis is alive anyway.....

Yes, I am unfamiliar with the location of the Pentagon,other than it is in Washington DC. Obviously makes me a nutter lol!

Would you not think there may have been some more footage of the crash in Washington?

What about what I wrote about NYC? you just picked up on the fact I don't know the precise location of the pentagon to dismiss me as a crank!

grantus - Member

The WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a similar sized plane to those which hit them

you are quoting a small part of what I wrote to make it look like I tried to make an authoritative statement when I did not do that.

This is a typical way of trying to discredit someone's opinion.

the nyc planes that hit the towers were 767s which are a similar size to 707s

not that it really matters as I won't change your opinions and you won't change mine

Not at all grantus. Its just my understanding is they were not designed to survive and impact from a plane that big. Nothing beyond stating that was my intent.

grantus - Member

However, a catastrophic failure of the steel leading to collapse doesn't really explain to a layman (i.e. me!) why all the concrete in the building turned to dust.

It didn't. Good enough?

grantus - Member

If they burned at over 700 or 800 degrees C or whatever was required to melt the steel

The steel didn't have to melt... In fact, it almost certainly didn't- steel softens long before it reaches melting point, so even if there was anough heat there to melt it (open to debate), the structure would be badly weakened before it reached that point.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm - you are right- 767S. Bigger and heavier than 707s but not double.

you just picked up on the fact I don't know the precise location of the pentagon to dismiss me as a crank!

I didn't read anything in that post that dismnisses you as a crank, I thought he was quite restrained. I think he and I would just prefer you to check your sources before you make such claims. Its easy to do..

I am not trying to discredit you, but you have stated a position, a hunch, suspicion or whatever, and it is obvious from what you have written that you know very little about what actually happened. So to address your concerns:

The WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a similar sized plane to those which hit them.

which isnt accurate - some analysis was done but it can only be that, analysis. The post collapse anlaysis was done with some pretty advanced methods which were not available at the time of the design/build. And no one is really sure exactly what analysis was done with regard to aircraft impact ie what conditions like, airspeed, fuel load etc.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Safety_concerns_regarding_aircraft_impacts ]see this wikipedia entry[/url]

However, a catastrophic failure of the steel leading to collapse doesn't really explain to a layman (i.e. me!) why all the concrete in the building turned to dust.

If you take the time to read the wikipedia article you can get an excellent understanding. [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Mechanics_of_Twin_Towers.27_collapse ]see this[/url]

Read that and then come back and tell us if you cannot understand how it happened, perhaps we will be able to expalain any of the bits that seem funny to you.

Fair do's Jeremy.

Toys19, re. the Pentagon and where it is - it was a question I had in my mind as to why there wouldn't have been more video capture of events there that day, for example from tourist perhaps - not stating anything as a fact. Regardless, I would have expected TV crews to have been either swarming all over the Pentagon, if not rapidly converging there, at the time of the explosion in Washington as this was forty minutes after the second attack in NYC and therefore clear that it was not an accident. This is why I am surprised there is no footage of the Pentagon incident other than the very grainy CCTV camera where you see a flash of something then an explosion. I, personally, find that surprising and therefore suspicious.

Northwind - I agree - my use of the term 'melt' is simplistic. To weaken to the point of structural failure is of course the correct terminology. What I find hard to understand, however, is that the steel would need to fail almost instantaneously at virtually every location in order for the building to come down within it's own footprint - for example as we see in controlled demolitions when strategically place charges are detonated at the same time.

However, in my mind, I would expect the random nature of the impact to have caused failures in some areas and not others. Failures which could perhaps cause catastrophic collapse but not in the manner in which it happened i.e. a partial collapse or a collapse to the side, for example. This is why I have trouble accepting the official version of events. Now, if every source explained why my simple thinking was flawed and therefore wrong then fine. Problem is, there are a lot of far more knowledgeable people than me who have argued this viewpoint in greater scientific detail. (and i'm not talking about the David Icke types out there)

To toys again, it is no good posting links that explain it. The point I am trying to make is that there are other sources which also make conflicting arguments with equal eloquence and professionalism which argue that there must be other contributing factors to why, for example, the buildings collapsed in the way they did.

The internet is full of people who debunk the official version with compelling arguments and evidence, and vice versa. Both make convincing arguments if you take the moral issue away from it. i.e. if you don't think about the evil behind the act (whoever perpetrated it) then both sides of the fence make compelling arguments.

However, when you factor in how unthinkable it would be for someone to plan and/or allow such attacks to take place on their fellow citizens with their knowledge then, I agree, it almost does become too hard to accept as it goes beyond almost* anything we have seen in human history in terms of man's inhumanity to man.

*while almost being beyond anything evil history has recorded, it is not as bad as the worst examples we know about i.e. the Holocaust and the Gulags, etc. People are capable of wicked deeds in the pursuit of power and money. In answer to your sarcasm, I don't find any of this funny at all.

I think there is more to those events than the official story. Let's agree to disagree.

The internet is full of people who debunk the official version with compelling arguments and evidence, and vice versa.

I disagree with this, if you follow all the work done by the conspiracy theroists it is easy to prove it wrong. Just because there are differing opinions does not mean you can give them equal weight.

fair enough mate. At the end of the day there are good people and evil people and a lot of good people died that day and since as a result.

Thing that struck me when watching a lot of the programmes about it this week is that you can seethe emotion on the faces of the people who lived through it i.e. The fire fighters, police, people on the street, rudy giuliani, etc. But when you see the likes of rumsfeld and cheney - these to me are wicked, unfeeling people. Not a flicker of emotion on them. as for bush - he is just a buffoon. not saying this is any sort of sign of guilt or whatever that others sometimes insinuate - more of an observation about what does and doesnt matter to these people.

As for dubya, if the quote attributed to him is genuine, that he said he watched the first plane hit live and he thought, man, that is one bad pilot - then that just epitomises his buffoonery.

it is obvious from what you have written that you know very little about what actually happened

This is an accusation which can just as easily be levelled at you, toys.

Got to ask; other than what the rest of us have in terms of info about 911, what is it that you know makes your onion so much more valid than others?

if you follow all the work done by the conspiracy theroists it is easy to prove it wrong.

Really?

Go on then.

No really, I'd like to see you prove the claims made by the Official Enquiry absolutely irrefutably correct, and those made by anyone questioning the Official Enqiuiry, with it's numerous omissions and innaccuracies as wrong.

Go on.

Considering you have only the same information as any of us.

Go on.

Before you attempt to dismiss any alternative views, [b]prove[/b] that the Official Enquiry's results are the Absolute Truth.

I'm off on holiday for a while. Have fun.

X

Agree with Elf and Grantus although I couldn't have put it as well as Grantus . My favourite theory is that that dangling a little strip of plastic from the back of a car to touch the road would stop you getting travel sick .
I think there is definitely a lot of suspicion about Dr David Kelly cutting his wrists to kill himself , also I thought it " convenient" at best that Robin Cook died of a heart attack while out walking in the hills after he had a big fall out with the government .

And as for the senseless slaughter of thousands of innocent people on 911; why do you think the Powers That Be care any more for those souls than the hundreds of thousands of innocent souls destroyed during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, not to mention countless other theatres of war worldwide that the US has bin involved in?

Do you know what the word 'expendable' means? Ever heard of the term 'Collateral Damage'?

Golf is a weird organisationation of people with small balls and sticks wandering around on some Organisised tidy bit of grass and somehow plotting world domination before their wife knows they have gone.

People are capable of wicked deeds in the pursuit of power and money.

I don't think it's about whether you believe that They would ever do such a thing- I can believe that They might do some pretty surprising things if They thought it would further Their aims and that They'd get away with it.

But beyond that, actually carrying it out stretches credibility too far IMO. For instance, why the planes at all, if the plan is to blow the towers up anyway (making sure to do it just the same way as a regular demolition, of course). Doesn't make sense to me.

What I find hard to understand, however, is that the steel would need to fail almost instantaneously at virtually every location in order for the building to come down within it's own footprint - for example as we see in controlled demolitions when strategically place charges are detonated at the same time.

Robin Cook died of a heart attack while out walking in the hills

You don't believe that do you ?

He was pushed.

But when you see the likes of rumsfeld and cheney - these to me are wicked, unfeeling people. Not a flicker of emotion on them. as for bush - he is just a buffoon. not saying this is any sort of sign of guilt or whatever that others sometimes insinuate - more of an observation about what does and doesnt matter to these people.

As for dubya, if the quote attributed to him is genuine, that he said he watched the first plane hit live and he thought, man, that is one bad pilot - then that just epitomises his buffoonery.

Well I can't say I really disagree with this, but not giving a sh*t about 3000 dead does not make you guilty of killing them. And tbh what they have perpetuated in Iraq, afghanistan and elsewhere is sickening, an awful lot worse than sept 11th.

Aside from the obvious, it is a fantasy to believe that 9/11 was perpetuated by the us govt, they couldn't even keep a blow job in the whitehouse a secret.
I'm happy to consider that they/someone might have known about it coming or may have even helped in some way by keeping security lax etc, but controlled demolition and missles is just a load of crap. TBH as far as Bush was concerned I thinkhe must have thought all his Christmases had come at once. But I still don't believe in controlled demolition, missiles or any of that. (you might also be able to convince me that U93 was shot down, what everyone fails to consider is that a fighter jet has armaments it can lock on and fire at an airborn target from about 100 miles away, so knowone would have seen any jet, they could aslo have done it with a SAM from even further away, but I think its highly unlikely, as the consequences of being found out are too great)

The problem with conspiracy theroists is that they often ignore science to further their politics, I imagine grantus and elfin that our politics on iraq, the war on terror etc are the same. But you guys discredit your aims by pushing a fantasy, and exposing a lack of logic, reason or thought.

Grantus by admission you are a layman, I guess you mena you arent science/eng so maybe you would find it hard to understand the way the towers fell, in which case I don't see that you have any right to pass judgement on wether it's true or not when by your own admission you cannot understand the evidence.

Golf.

Now that's definitely a conspiracy...

The problem with conspiracy theroists is that they often ignore science to further their politics

Oh behave yourself Toys. Loads of science stuff from 'conspiracy theorists', not least physical evidence suggesting the possible (note, '[i]possible[/i]') use of t[url= http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html ]hermite charges[/url].

And other stuff. Just Google it; that's how you've got most of your information after all. 😉

In fact, the suggestion that al three (yes, WTC Building 7 too, remember that?) towers were brought down in a manner [i]identical[/i] to a controlled demolition, isn't all that preposterous at all, if you actually look at the scientific evidence. scientific evidence which seems to have bin deliberately ignored by the Official Enquiry.

Then there's[url= http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html ] the seismic reports which suggest several 'spikes' in seismic activity[/url] which are virtually identical to sudden explosions....

The problem with narrow minded sheep is that they often ignore actual scientific evidence rather than what they've bin told to further their politics....

😉

Grantus by admission you are a layman, I guess you mena you arent science/eng so maybe you would find it hard to understand the way the towers fell, in which case I don't see that you have any right to pass judgement on wether it's true or not when by your own admission you cannot understand the evidence.

Ooh, I'm cleverer than you cos I've got a bit of paper proving it which means I can be condescending and derogatory towards you...

TBH Toys; you're coming across as quite narrow minded and unwilling to consider alternative theries and possibilities, tbh. Seems like you've already made your mind up, and cant abide anyone challenging that which you have chosen to believe in, as that threatens your fragile sensibilities.

Almost [i]evangelical[/i], in fact....

grantus - Member

What I find hard to understand, however, is that the steel would need to fail almost instantaneously at virtually every location in order for the building to come down within it's own footprint

But no, it doesn't. There's 2 stages to it, a progressive first stage and a catastrophic second stage. If you were to collapse the building in a single process then yes, it'd need to be simultaneous (controlled explosion, basically), but that wasn't what happened.

First stage is the building slowly weakening- individual parts of the structure weaken and deform. Comulative process. Then as parts fail outright, the other components get overloaded and fail in turn til eventually, the top section drops onto the bottom section. But clearly there's no need for this all to happen in the blink of an eye- it's no different to a wheel collapsing or similiar cumulative failure.

The second stage of the collapse comes after the top section falls onto the bottom section. It's a much faster process, effectively it's a hammerblow... So the top section doesn't have to fall perfectly square onto the lower section, all it has to do is fall.

Lots of people believe that for the buildings to have landed as they did, the top section must have fallen absolutely straight down, right? And that proves that it must have all failed simultaneously, because otherwise it would have fallen at an angle?

[img] [/img]

"science stuff" so that'll be the double blind, absolute no, incontrovertible stuff that exists only then?

Or so I want to believe it anyway

FTFY.

There's one thing I really like about conspiracy theorists... They look for multiple pieces of evidence that they think contradict the official line, but they rarely care whether those pieces of evidence contradict each other. For example:

Controlled demolition using thermite- not explosives, because there were no visible or audible blasts.
Seismic charts which people say indicates explosions.

People will happilly use those both as evidence even though they're mutually contradictory. It's like trying to refure an alibi by coming up with eyewitnesses who can put the person in 2 different places at the same time.

I am a layman indeed no structural engineering background other than one first year module and no fire engineering kowledge other than steel increases in strenght undr intense heat up to apoint where it then starts to soften. my basic understanding of physics is that every action has an equal and opposite reaction and that if you drop something it falls against normal air resistance on earth it accelerates at 10 metres per second until it reaches terminal velocity of around 120 metres per second.

the towers apearr to fall without resistance. one would expect resistance from the unaffected lower floors

You lot all so flipping stupid!

You're all blind to what really happened - planes on invisible conveyor belts

grantus - Member

the towers apearr to fall without resistance.

No they don't! Look at any video of the fall, the debris that falls clear of the building falls faster than the main structure, and the main structure takes considerably longer than freefalling would have taken. There's a pretty good debunking video of this...

There's one thing I really like about conspiracy theorists... They look for multiple pieces of evidence that they think contradict the official line, but they rarely care whether those pieces of evidence contradict each other. For example:

Controlled demolition using thermite- not explosives, because there were no visible or audible blasts.
Seismic charts which people say indicates explosions.

Have a little read up of stuff then it might be a little clearer to you.

Basic thermite preparations can be modified and augmented in various ways to change their properties. The fineness of the aluminum powder determines the speed of the reaction. The use of ultra-fine aluminum powder gives the reaction an [b]explosive[/b] quality, resulting in 'super-thermites'.

🙂

What I love about 'conspiracy theorist debunkers' is that they often ignore lots of stuff to try and seem all clever and that. 😉

No they don't! Look at any video of the fall, the debris that falls clear of the building falls faster than the main structure, and the main structure takes considerably longer than freefalling would have taken.

Maybe you had your playback on slow-mo: the towers all fell at a considerable speed, and according to many demolition experts, in exactly the same manner to a controlled demolition....

How long will this argument rage for? Several days? Weeks? Months? Years?

Until the Real Truth comes out?

Northwind i must admit it does annoy me that folks are labelled conspiracy theorists in such ways.

i grew up in the 80s with a thatcher and reagan hating father lol! But i kinda thought americans were the saviours of the free world. america to me was everything good about the world. as i got older i read more and discovered that the uk and - post ww2 - america were responsible for not only a lot of good in the world but also a depressingly amount of bad.

To study post ww2 american history in terms of foreign policy is eye ipening in the extreme. from italy in 1947/8 through to central and southern america in the 50s through the 80s to south east asia. not to mention abuses domestically via cia black operations which are now undisputed matters of fact i.e. Mk ultra, bioligical and chemical experimentation on unsuspecting civilian populations.

The last 50 years of american expansionism has been fascistic to the extreme. it is logical to think that, no matter how abhorrent a regime, the americans could never attack their own people as it goes against all tenets of freedom, liberty, democracy - the american dream. however, is it not a fair statement to say that subsequent generations move things on in relation to the actions and behaviours of their predecessors? I.e. In the 50s and 60s the right wing of american foreign policy considered how the shooting down - or mock shooting down of an american passenger liner over the gulf of mexico would validate an invasion of cuba in order to protect america and consolidate power abroad i.e. Get rid of comrade castro. perhaps a step too far for even those policy makers. fast forward 40 years. Times change? who knows but viewed in light of the publicised strategies of PNAC could fact be stranger than fiction??

grantus - Member
But when you see the likes of rumsfeld and cheney - these to me are wicked, unfeeling people. Not a flicker of emotion on them.

This entire thread is worth it just for that statement. You have my complete support on that one, grantus.

To be honest, i have, like everyone else, must have seen the collapse hundreds of times and i have nevr seen a video which shows anything other than virtual freefall of those structures.

Those poor people - i only hope it was bloody quick for them 🙁

How come Grantus is not being subjected to the kind of vitriolic crap I was earlier in this thread? 😕

Izzit becoz I iz Elf?

😥

It will rage for ever elfin because facts dont sway those who believe in the conspiracy and look for its evidence everywhere.
Could they have done it ?Possibly
Could they have done it without anyone in the know saying anything? Less likely
Would they do it? Even less likely.

Occam's razor put this hypothesis on pretty weak ground tbh and the evidence to prove it is less than overwhelming.

Would they do it? Even less likely.

Really?

Why?

FFS.....

Elfinsafety - Member
Have a little read up of stuff then it might be a little clearer to you.

Fraid not... The seismic traces are said to be proof of large explosions. Fast thermite is not the same thing- having "an explosive quantity" doesn't turn thermite into a large-scale conventional high explosive. And the reason the theorists were so enamoured of thermite in the [i]first[/i] place was specifically that it got around the awkward lack of large explosions.

You can have exploding thermite, but you can't have exploding thermite and no explosions. If you actually [i]want[/i] an explosion, you wouldn't use thermite at all.

Elfinsafety - Member

Maybe you had your playback on slow-mo: the towers all fell at a considerable speed,

Slow-mo footage wouldn't cause some debris to fall faster than others now would it? Try harder.

Most conspiracy theories are at least plausible, but this one doesn't stand up to even casual examination, it's just pure misinformation.

No come on Flashy, don't just come on and say 'FFS'; say what [i]you[/i] really think.

Come on, don't be shy...

Northwind; so, you're an explosives expert now? 😆

Behave yourself. Seriously. Look how much effort you're putting into 'proving' the 'conspiracy theories' wrong. Yet you're actually proving nothing.

Waffle wibble blah blah bullshit please believe me.....

Elfin is cos you is black and smoked the ganja then hid it from the police with your white friend!!! - i saw you admit it on another thread lol! - or am i confusing you with ernie lynch??

i confusing you with ernie lynch

Cheeky git.

I am not black, I am brown. 😐

I cannot possibly comment about the Ganja. Suffice to say that Babylon Dem is no capture de Elf.

😆

No, it's cos I'm always right on this forum, and the wrong-uns can't handle that. 😀

It's as simple as that.

Elfinsafety - Member

Northwind; so, you're an explosives expert now?

Nope, I can merely read and think 😉 You don't need to know much to see through the feebleness of some of this. And TBH I don't think you believe most of it, if any.

For your free-falling building to be true, the genuinely free-falling debris must have fallen faster than gravity. Rocket assist? Elastic bands? You don't need to know a thing about explosions or buildings to see through the nonsense, you just need eyes, and the ability to count past 9 seconds.

As for proving- I've not proved anything. I'm out to debunk nonsense. It's conceivable that some of the theories are true, but many aren't (and some contradict each other).

Grantus- no offence but you're seeing what you want to see. Time it out, watch the debunk videos (with a cynical eye!), look at the free-falling debris. It's a lie.

Saxonrider, unfortunately it seems to be an inbuilt trait of our western politicians.

I do believe gordon brown and john major were/are decent men. Blair and thatcher - 2 peas in a pod.
As for usa, obama and mccain i both think are honest men. God forbid what happens after obama has to stand down.

Mccain will be too old - palin!!??!!