[Closed] What's your favourite conspiracy theory?

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.

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.

This ^ x 100000000000000000000000000000

Because it's very complicated, would have to involve an awful lot of people, and seems to involve previously unknown levels of competence and, at the same time, seemingly massive clues that all is not as it seems.

It's one thing to believe they [i]would[/i] do it, but it's another to believe they actually [i]did[/i] do it in this particular case, with the demolition, missiles and all the rest of it. The things they would have to have pulled off just aren't very plausible.

Ooh look. 'Internet Experts' trying desperately to prove stuff they don't actually have a clue about. 😆

You guys, you guys kill me with your funny!

Carry on though, it's very entertaining.

Toys; are you going to lose it and resort to personal abuse tonight, like you did last night? cos that was well funny, you losing it like that. Go on, do it again! 😀

Would they do it? Even less likely.
Really?

Why?

I think if Bush/America/Hawks/Lizzard people whomever wanted to go to war there are far easier ways to do it than 9/11 . Blair did all this with just a sexed up dossier. Now whilst Bush is a bit dumb I think even he and his aides could come up with a plan that did not involve attacking his own country with planes.
Occams razor unless you can provide some overwhelming proof.

Why are you goading like that fred ? You get annoyed with Cpt, stoner and others when they do it to you ...poor form IMHO.

Elf, with everything I post I consider very carefully what I write. You are a massive troll, and I get lots of pleasure out of telling you so and exposing your mornic inanity. If I met you in the pub and you behaved the same way, I'd still be very happy to tell you exactly what I think of you. Perhaps we should arrange it.

edit: JY do you actually expect anything less from elf? He doesnt come here to contribute, he comes to preen. I expect he is kissing himself right now.

Elf, with everything I post I consider very carefully what I write. You are a massive troll, and I get lots of pleasure out of telling you so and exposing your mornic inanity. If I met you in the pub and you behaved the same way, I'd still be very happy to tell you exactly what I think of you. Perhaps we should arrange it.

😆

You funny, funny guy...

Shh now; Beverly Hills Cop 3 is on.

Shh now; Beverly Hills Cop 3 is on.

They made a third?!? 😛

Elfinsafety - Member

Ooh look. 'Internet Experts' trying desperately to prove stuff they don't actually have a clue about

What... Gravity? Counting to 9 seconds? It's not all [i]that[/i] complicated 😉

Sad fact is, many conspiracy theories are so weak, they don't need any specialist knowledge at all to disprove.

Northwind, i don't understand what you mean about freefall being faster than gravity? my understanding of freefall is 120mph before air friction stops velocity increasing any further?

Think we are probs going round in circles - toys i read one of your links which refers to engineer mt robertson 'allegedly' claiming he carried out jet liner impact scenario calculations.

Part of me thinks why would they have reason to doubt him but the devil's advocate says that he has vested interest to defend his design.

Peace out.

refers to engineer mt robertson 'allegedly' claiming he carried out jet liner impact scenario calculations.

Firstly, I think that is your interpretation of it, which without wanting to appear rude, might seem paranoid? I think they just state that he claimed he did the analysis, but couldn't provide any proof, ergo nobody knows if he did it or what the analysis assumptions were. Just seems like a statement of facts really. Given that he didnt provide any docs I dunno how the troothers can campaign that the buildings were designed to withstand whatever, as there isn't any evidence they were. They guys memory might be shot and he could have confused the work he did 30 odd years ago with work on another building or any number of other scenarios..

Secondly freefall terminal velocity is dependant on the air resistance of the object, apparantly a peregrine can freefall up to 200mph because of its aerodynamic shape in the dive. The 120mph I think is a number applied to humans falling. I actually think that bits of the wtc would have varying terminal velocities.

What northwind is saying quite eloquently is that the outer facade of the building and other bits ejected as it falls are falling much faster than the main body of the building. Now as these are falling through free air with no other bits of building to crash into on the way one can safely assume that they are under freefall and will accellerate at 9.8 m/s (or your rounded up 10 m/s) so given that the main body is obviously going slower, it cannot be at freefall, as the other bits we have already proven are at freefall. Therefore the freefall thing is a fallacy.

Yes i'm sure someone will have timed it somewhere and perhaps it is all about visual perception i.e. The use of the term freefall may not be strictly true even though the falling buildings gave that impression. i acknowledge as well that mr robertson is not impartial as it is his design and what could be worse than thinking was there something he could have built into his design a bit better in 1966 that may have saved lives 30+ years later even though any logical person could not blame him in any way but the human mind does not always work in a logical fashion.

Fwiw i do believe that mr robertson carried out the calculations he said he did however of course there is nothing for me to back this up with other than a gut feeling.

Also, i accept that calculations on paper may not reflect what happens in practice when a once in a millenium event happens in real life. notwithstanding, i cant't accept the identical collapse pattern for both towers.

Common sense dictates that the different strike patterns would have caused different trauma to each structure and therefore i would expect them to react in different ways as a result - but they plunged straight down like no other strucutre in history.

Thanks for the debate however as it is genuinely interesting

grantus if nyou watch any of the collapse videos you will see the parts of the core still standing at the end quivering for a bit and then falling. The twin towers had this core up the middle and each floor was bolted on like a ring, a donut, so as the mass of the floors above hit the floors below they broke the floor connections to the core and down they go. So you could argue that the core guided the pancakes down to a degree. The other thing is that once a mass that great is going in one direction then you are goign to need a big force to deflect it off its direction, its going down only.

Common sense dictates that the different strike patterns would have caused different trauma to each structure and therefore i would expect them to react in different ways as a result

but they plunged straight down like no other strucutre in history.

grantus - Member

Northwind, i don't understand what you mean about freefall being faster than gravity?

Freefall isn't. What I'm saying is that in the sequences of the towers falling, you can see genuine freefalling debris- the stuff that falls away from the towers. And when you watch the towers themselves, they've clearly not falling as fast. So either the towers are being dramatically slowed down (they take at the very least 50% longer than claimed, after which they get obscured by dust), or the other freefalling stuff is falling faster than freefall.

grantus - Member

i cant't accept the identical collapse pattern for both towers.

But why on earth not? Surely that's the most likely outcome? The detail is different but the end result was always going to be the same- layer burns out and weakens, top falls onto bottom and knocks it downwards.

toys i cant disagree with your logic but to take it right back, other explanations i have read also seem logical.

junkyard that would be silly. although, it would definitley provide evidence - perhaps not what you expect though.

i'm out.

Yes, I am unfamiliar with the location of the Pentagon,other than it is in Washington DC. Obviously makes me a nutter lol!...you just picked up on the fact I don't know the precise location of the pentagon to dismiss me as a crank!

Can't quote exact figures but one of the biggest problems of going to Mars is shielding the astronauts from radiation.Think it needs 9 inches of aluminium.
So it's quite surprising that the men on the moon were quite safe with a relatively thin suit.Radiation on the moon is pretty extreme.
Looking at the facts I would say it's unlikely we have been to the moon but I am sure the Russians wouldn't be in on the conspiracy.

I saw someone mention dr david kelly - defo think the man was murdered.

Never heard the robin cook one before.

One i read was german immigrants to usa post ww2 being recruited to the republican party to garner suport in the large ethnic german communities in the us. people who had been active in the nazi party.

A sporting conspiracy is maradona claimed his positive dope test in 1994 was orchestrated by fifa because he had been so critical of them in the past.

here's a good one i saw earlier in this thread! wtc7 collapsed after fires burned out of control all day and caused structural failure of the steel.

this, however, is easy to debunk. pictures of wtc7 before and during the collapse show no signs of major fire. no major smoke or flames billowing from the building, glass intact. fires intense enough to melt steel will blow out the glass long before the steel fails.

if fires had burned for 9 hours in that building it would have been like the towering inferno.

But what do i know? I dont know where the pentagon is lol! 😉

It is impossible to refute your claims without reference to sources which you will claim are part of the conspiracy.

It is pointless Fisking conspiracy theorists' claims because they simply never address or accept any disproved claims but just wheel out something new.

konabunny, its a great way to find people to put on Buzz Aldrins list though.

That the NHS is being privatised...

That the lockerbie bomb was placed on the plane by the CIA, believing that they were smuggling drugs in order to pay for information. Which is quite ridiculous the CIA would never have dealt with the Libyan secret services 😕

The arguments about the events of the day about 9/11 actually distract from the very real issues of the event.

1, the actions of the west (supporting oppressive regimes in the middle east) therefore creating such hatred.
2, The abuse of the events to start wars for profits, to remove personal freedoms within western states, and generally to distract attention from the very real dangers that greed and elitist wealth was/is creating within our societies.

There is also perhaps a hint of what the intelligence services may have known beforehand, and may have been able to prevent, but that is more likely to fall under the auspice of incompetence than conspiracy.

re. the wtc7 - my sources are pictures that are readily available on line - there is no sign of out of control fire which has burned for 8 hours.

Re. the Lockerbie one - I have read that one - that a top ranking CIA official was on that flight heading for Washington to blow the whistle on drug smuggling by the Assads of Syria with the co-operation of CIA rougue elements to fund black operations. Hence allegations of a helicopter arriving from Machrihanish within an hour of the crash and agents scouring the debris and removing a briefcase which contained incriminating evidence.

I prefer to believe it was Iranian revenge for the shooting down of their passenger airliner in 1986 by US fighter jets and carried out by the PLO.

Yitzhak Rabin is another interesting one

the actions of the west (supporting oppressive regimes in the middle east) therefore creating such hatred.

Essentially what you are doing is saying that the hijackers etc were motivated by their disagreements with US foreign policy and were also in some way representative of a wider dissatisfaction and hatred. (I am not suggesting that you are suggesting that the methods are merely "regrettable" or anything, don't get me wrong).

But really that ignores the underlying irrationality and scumbagginess of Bin Laden, and obscures the fact that Bush v Bin Laden was (inter alia) a struggle between two egomaniacal fundamentalist millionaires. Neither was motivated by genuine concern for those they claimed to represent. If it hadn't been US foreign policy, it would have been something else that OBL espoused (the re-establishment of the ummah, for example) and would have been his project.

That is to say, there are many, many reasons why US/NATO foreign policy can be legitimately criticised, but the fact that it alienated OBL and his henchmen is not one of them. You can negotiate with terrorists but not with mentalists.

Apologies if I am misconstruing what you are saying - I realise this is an emotive topic and I am not trying to flame you.

my take on the lockerbie crash is, was there a bomb at all ? the whole incident is very similar to [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800 ]twa flight 800[/url]

my take on the lockerbie crash is, was there a bomb at all ? the whole incident is very similar to twa flight 800

Nah, it was some bloke from Libya. C'mon people, how can you not believe Alex Salmond?

I think this overstates the rationality of Bin Laden and the hijackers, and buys into the "they hate us for our freedoms" concept.

They don't hate "us" for our freedoms, they hate us for their lack of freedoms, for the regimes we supported that gave them no freedom.

Can anyone list a war worth having after ww 2? They all seem to benefit people who already have alot of money and want more.
Lets not forget the picture of Tory bLiar shaking Gadaffis hand.
Oppose all war, blowing peoples kids up is not a way to make them like you.
When the SAS shot the IRA on Gibraltar i felt like we had won the world cup. At one of the funerals for the ira some idiot threw a grenade into the mourners. This lead to more dead and later on 2 squaddies took a wrong turn into the funeral procession for one of the dead.
They were dragged from the car and beaten to death.
It all goes around and bites you back in the end.
Look at China they practically own Africa and all its resources without a shot being fired. Not holding them up as moral examples but they seem a bit cleverer than us .

Can anyone list a war worth having after ww 2? They all seem to benefit people who already have a lot of money and want more

No. Not sure how many wars EVER were worth it.

Look at China they practically own Africa and all its resources without a shot being fired. Not holding them up as moral examples but they seem a bit cleverer than us.

Ethics, old boy. Plus ineffective trade relations and no commercial might. Oh, and Prince Andrew.

here's a good one i saw earlier in this thread! wtc7 collapsed after fires burned out of control all day and caused structural failure of the steel.

[i]"...we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. "[/i]
-- [url= http://www.firehouse.com/stateprovince/new-york/deputy-chief-peter-hayden ]Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, Firehouse Magazine, April 2002[/url]

That from a fire chief on the scene. A fire chief who lost a lot of friends on Sept 11. Do you [i]really[/i] think he'd be complicit in a cover up?

fires intense enough to melt steel will blow out the glass long before the steel fails.

A practical experiment to try at home: Take a U shaped block of concrete with a steel rod braced across the top of the U. Heat the rod. Steel expands. Concrete cracks. Structure collapses. There is no need to get anywhere near steel melting point.

[i]"The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors."[/i]
-- [url= http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm ]NIST, Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation[/url]

I think one of the biggest fallacies spouted by the conspirancy theorist is that the twin towers fell within there own footprint. They didn't, debri was spread over a large area. Infact large pieces of one of the towers stuck WTC7 and helped to weaken that structure too.

If it was a controlled demolition then it wasn't a very good one but thats okay because the conspirators no doubt intended to bring down WTC7 as well.

At some point you need to call Occam's Razor and realise that however hard it is to believe that a bunch of Arab terrorists planned and carried out the most audacious terrorist attack ever on the world most powerful conutry; its a lot more beliveable than a conspiracy involving hundreds of people in the US Government actively conspiring to murder their own people and then covering it up for ten years

Can anyone list a war worth having after ww 2? They all seem to benefit people who already have alot of money and want more.

Arguably the Malayan Emergency was worth fighting as well - not that the way it was fought was necessarily the right way to fight it, you understand.

Edit: and I suppose this is not exactly addressing the point you've made, but NIreland and the Falklands were military engagements which were huge moneylosers too, for whatever that is worth.

later on 2 squaddies took a wrong turn into the funeral procession for one of the dead.

They don't hate "us" for our freedoms, they hate us for their lack of freedoms, for the regimes we supported that gave them no freedom

Looking at the facts I would say it's unlikely we have been to the moon but I am sure the Russians wouldn't be in on the conspiracy.

How can you conclude that 😯 - do you not think the russians may have outed them at the time during the cold war and the race if it were not true ? YUou can check the signal delay from the radio signals and triangulate the location. The left reflector dish can still be bounced today - clearly we went anything else is just ludicrous clutching at straws from a few misunderstod facts.
Could you at least list the facts so I can debunk them one by one?

PS
[b]@graham5 - you talk rubbish - and too much if it.”[/b]
😀

What is interesting about the conspiracy theorists' claims is that they believe that the scientific truth of their claim is so obvious that even lay people with no or only an elementary understanding of the science involved can see it. Yet simultaneously none of the many, many thousands of people with a relatively advanced knowledge of the science (from every secondary school physics teacher on upwards and at least some of whom must be "open minded" non-sheeple) have ever written a scientific critique of the "official version" that stands up to peer review.

No, I don't think the firechief would be complicit in a cover up regardless of whether he lost friends or not.

He gave an eyewitness account saying he expected the building to collapse. I would expect, given what happened earlier in the day - he wasn't going to risk any more firefighters' lives.

His eyewitness account, while I don't dispute it for a second (although you could argue his verbal testimony is as likely to be true as is Leslie Robertson's re. his assertion that he did indeed carry out the collision calculations he said he did in the 1960s), does not mean I have to accept the excerpt from the NIST report about WHY it fell.

This is matters of opinion. The building is quite clearly not engulfed by fire and did not suffer as severe damage from falling debris as other buildings closer to the twin towers which did not fall down - hence people are naturally suspicious as to why such a structure should give the appearance of being demolished in a controlled manner.

What I (and elfinsafety before in this thread) have been trying to put across all along is that there is so much contradictory opinion on the possible causes of what happened that it is not beyond doubt for a lot of people that the offical version of events is correct.

The people calling foul here do include some of the usual 'George Bush is a lizard' folks but there are also a lot of other academics who question the version and who are not the typical 'tin foil hat' brigade.

It is the opinion of some posters here that the conspiracy theories are easily debunked. I followed one of the links posted as evidence and the first article was a discrediting of a guy from ae911.

Discrediting someone is not the same as debunking a theory.

Let's respect each others' opinions

He gave an eyewitness account saying he expected the building to collapse. I would expect, given what happened earlier in the day - he wasn't going to risk any more firefighters' lives.

In fact they were so certain it would collapse they withdrew everyone at 3:30 and it collapsed two hours later.

His eyewitness account, while I don't dispute it for a second.... The building is quite clearly not engulfed by fire

His eyewitness account said there was "a heavy body of fire" within the building which they did not attempt to fight. So you [i]are[/i] disputing that. Did you have a better view than him?

people are naturally suspicious as to why such a structure should give the appearance of being demolished in a controlled manner.

What sort of controlled demolition puts a three-storey high bulge in a building, three hours before the main demolition?

Why is it that an eyewitness fire chief, a first-hand expert on buildings collapsing during fires, doesn't think there was anything odd about the collapse? Don't you think he'd mention if he thought someone had blown up the building?

Why on earth would the building be prepped for demolition and rigged with demolition charges in the first place? It makes no sense.

Let's respect each others' opinions

I can listen to your opinion - and respond to it politely - but I'm afraid I can't respect it.

pictures of wtc7 before and during the collapse show no signs of major fire. no major smoke or flames billowing from the building, glass intact.

The intensity of the fire, the structural damage and the likely effect of the fire were evident to the fire chief in advance of the collapse.

The wikipedia page for WTC Building 7 has a photo of the building with a large amount of smoke coming from it.

hence people are naturally suspicious as to why such a structure should give the appearance of being demolished in a controlled manner

Both of your claims (that it was suspicious there were not more tourists and people standing around outside the Pentagon filming it because that what usually happens and that there were no signs of major fire at WTC Building 7 before collapse) were untrue as a fact, not opinion. Even if they were reasonable things to think in the first place, reasonable people would be able to get to the bottom of them by referring to the easily-discoverable and easily-verifiable facts.

This is not like the moon landings nonsense - which is laughable but ultimately inoffensive. Believing in conspiracy theories about 9/11 and putting forward falsehoods is - like Holocaust denial - either wilfully or unwittingly giving encouragement to those who would exploit those lies for their own evil purposes.

Ok Graham but I think you haven't got the point i've been trying to make plus you posted a cut and paste of what I wrote to make a quote of of your own.

I've read the debunking viewpoints as well as the conspiracy theories and when I read them both make me think that what they are saying sounds feasible. My point is trying to say that it is understandable that you then need to decide which is right and which is wrong and therefore why there are so many people who will question the truth of the official version - myself included.

konabunny you are completely twisting the comment I made about the Pentagon and the lack of video footage of the explosion there and have mentioned several times about my ignorance thinking a tourist may have captured something but have not answered whether or not you think it is surprising that no tv news teams would be there as it was a good 40 minutes after. You see, everyone has an agenda when it comes to trying to prove a point and will pick and chose what they reply to - classic example above with Graham making up his own selective quotation from my earlier post.

I have seen those WTC7 pictures as they are available on any google search and they show a lot of smoke from the rear combining with the dust from the earlier collapses but not flame.

I'm not trying to convince anyone here and stating that what I say is a fact - i'm expressing my own opinion which is different from yours but I haven't tried to put anyone down becuse they see things differently than I do.

Okay grantus, I don't think you are trolling I think you are genuinely interested, if a little bit ill-informed.

So ask away about any questions you have, any doubts you have about the theories and the good people of STW will put your mind at rest!

you posted a cut and paste of what I wrote to make a quote of of your own.

Not with the intention of twisting your words. Just demonstrating that you made two contradictory statements: you accepted the fire chief's statement as fact, but then said that in your opinion the building didn't have major fires.

you then need to decide which is right and which is wrong and therefore why there are so many people who will question the truth of the official version

Nothing wrong with questioning the official version. Contrary to Elf's earlier assumptions I think it is only right and proper to question the "official line".

I did the same thing with 9/11 - but when I found that my questions had perfectly reasonable answers backed by physical evidence and expert eyewitness testimony then I decided the official line was about as close to the truth as can be reasonably expected.

a better way of explaining it may be to look at the Pan Am 103 example. Dr Jim Swire is quite a high profile campaigner in this country and thinks the truth has not been told. Other families believe justice was served. Both parties will have grounds for thinking the way they do.

Why is this? natural cynicism?, government mis-information? track record of cover-ups/partial cover ups of embarassing/damning evidence which if brought to light would end political careers? Probably a combination of all these things.

Yes, I can see that Graham - personally, I don't quite buy the offical version as I have written before I am suspicious of many things about it but, equally, still find it hard to believe that elements of American government or whoever, could/would have done this regardless of what other things they could be capable of although I find myself not being able to rule it out completely.

I'll keep an open mind on it.

There is a quote in Jeremy Whittle's Bad Blood book he uses at the start of a chapter.

"There are three sides to every story - yours, mine and the truth" 🙂

a better way of explaining it may be to look at the Pan Am 103 example

There is quite a difference between conspiring to blame one "bad guy", instead of another (when neither claim responsibility) and conspiring directly with the "bad guys" to help them murder nearly 3000 of your own citizens on your own soil.

Sensible question though: IF all three WTC buildings were somehow secretly prepped for a controlled demolition (main structural supports cut and hundreds of remote demolition charges strategically placed around the building) - what would the conspirators have done if the hijack plot failed?

They couldn't very well leave the buildings fatally weakened and covered in explosives. How would they explain it if someone found them? That's a pretty big risk.

I agree - it would have to be foolproof in that case.

How to make it foolproof? I don't know

Grantus what konabunny and Graham and I are saying is that you keep saying that both sides are plausible without checking the facts

[b]1)[/b] No tourist pics at pentagon - if there were usually loads of tourists surrounding the pentagon then yes you have a case but there are not as it isnt in downtown WDC:

So your case based on unresearched falshoods x1

[b]2)[/b] WTC7 no fire. Again a statement you made withoput qualification when in fact there are loads of photos of pints of smoke billowing from wtc 7, loads of damage, videos of bulging and loads of firemen/witness to testify that it was burning like crazy.

I have seen those WTC7 pictures as they are available on any google search and they show a lot of smoke from the rear combining with the dust from the earlier collapses but not flame.

Another case based on unresearched falsehoods x2.

[b]3)[/b] WTC towers and freefall - again pished on by Northwind and myself.

Another case based on unresearched falsehoods x3.

[b]4)[/b] The wtc towers designed to withstand impact. - Again pished on by me and the others.

Another case based on unresearched falsehoods x4.

Can you see a trend developing here?
These are not a matter of opinion they are a matter of obvious fact with a small amount of critical thinking, I think this is why people are starting to disrespect you, its possible that you are just taking the mick (trolling) but it's getting boring.

I just said they seem plausible to me when reading articles made by people supporting both viewpoints therefore they put doubt in my mind.

I've tried to explain that in about the last several posts i've made on this thread.

They don't seem plausible to you - that's your opinion. I'm not trying to convert anyone or tell you that you are wrong or make 'a case' . I don't think the reference to not seeing flame licking out the building is laughable. I never said it wasn't on fire - I said it wasn't engulfed by fire for example the high rise fires you can see on google images which are raging infernos. This one is quite obviously on fire.

The terminology 'freefall' and 'near freefall' are ones that are used by commentators on the subject and that is what it looks like to me as well. These are not my statments of fact.

The question of whether or not the towers were designed to withstand impacts. Pished on? The designer claimed to have carried out tests. There is no evidence of this having been done. It is another question of who you believe. I believe he did. I also said it an earlier post that perhaps the tests were flawed but maybe they were not. You don't know and I don't know but we have an opinion.

There are families of 9/11 victims who think there is a conspiracy and there are those who don't. Get over yourself.

found this while looking for something else:

[url] http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2011/03/japan-tsunami-caused-by-haarp.html [/url]

makes the 9/11 conspiracies look almost credible....

Still?

[i]STILL????[/i]

😯

(Goes off to ride bike...)

Still?

STILL????

(Goes off to ride bike...)

That guys up to something – probably something architectural. I can feel it!

🙂

EDIT: Welcome back, old friend thread.

There is no doubt that the official line that the air at ground zero was safe to breathe 7 days after the attack was spectacularly incorrect . Thousands of cases of people with respiritory problems relating to 9/11 persist .

There is no doubt that the official line that the air at ground zero was safe to breathe 7 days after the attack was spectacularly incorrect . Thousands of cases of people with respiritory problems relating to 9/11 persist

See this is the kind of conspiracy theory I can get onboard with.

Gulf War Syndrome is another good one where there might be evidence of a government cover up.

But these less sensational issues always get sidelined by nutjobs looking for Area 51, evidence of Prince Philip killing Diana, fake moon landings etc.

Maybe that's the real conspiracy

The Gulf War Syndrome for sure.

Area 51 is one of them i'm 50/50 with. Reckon most likely scenario is a top secret military test/spy facility as opposed to cold storage for aliens but you never know.

Princess Di - can't really think why Prince Phillip would really give a toss, to be honest, about who she was shagging and potentially going to marry.

The moon landings - don't really have an opinion on that one either way.

As for the Gulf War again, I seem to remember reading somewhere that Saddam thought he had tacitly been given a green light to occupy Kuwait by the West but then when he went and done it they double-crossed him and declared war. I suppose it could be true, but, if they wanted an excuse to get him then they wouldn't have let him stay in power another 12 years, would they?

Princess Di - can't really think why Prince Phillip would really give a toss, to be honest, about who she was shagging and potentially going to marry.

Prince Phillip - so Mrs 16 has it - wanted to protect the good name of the royal family (!). Not only was Diana doing so many good works that the royals were left in her wake – looking like ineffectual remnants of an out-dated paradigm - but she was also shagging a foreigner and the prospect of heirs to the throne having a non-white baby for a relative was too much to bear.

So the argument goes. Personally I can't see how Prince Philip could lead a super-clever conspiracy and then keep quiet for more than a decade. Dude's a total p*sshead and discretion is not one of his strong points...

and this, if its not already been posted?

That Clangers really live on the Moon 😯

Dude's a total p*sshead and discretion is not one of his strong points...

so the cover's not been blown yet then?

If that's a cover, I can't wait for it to be blown.