What's your favourite conspiracy theory?

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

1) 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

2) 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.

This is just laughable. Are you saying there was a massive smoke generator in there? Making all different coloured smoke and some massive variable speed fans to simulate the convective pulsing? The fires were hidden by the smoke..

Another case based on unresearched falsehoods x2.

3) WTC towers and freefall – again pished on by Northwind and myself.

Another case based on unresearched falsehoods x3.

4) 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:

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

makes the 9/11 conspiracies look almost credible….

Still?

STILL????

😯

(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…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyLGN90h_Rw&feature=related

and this, if its not already been posted?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

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?

so the cover’s not been blown yet then?

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