100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Conspiracies....... | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 01/04/12 08:29 AM
|
|
No science has explained the aftermath of the towers.
Not enough debris, parking lots of melted cars, some even miles away from the towers. Two planes hitting the towers did not cause this! I think it absurd that so-called "scientists" think they have explained it and amazed that anyone believes that the towers fell in a pancake collapse given the evidence. Someone has been bought off or threatened to go along with that ridiculous concocted story. The official story was concocted for a large portion of a dumbed down population. The elite actually believe that most people are that gullible. You can fool some of the people all of the time.... and you can fool all of the people some of the time.... but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. In this first picture you will see a steel beam turn into DUST AND BLOW AWAY! At the bottom, you will see the size of one of those steel beams. It is on the back of a semi truck.      Above: Hundreds of cars melted and destroyed. A plane hitting the tower could not have done this!!! DUH!! For crap sake I can't believe people can still think "science" has explained the aftermath evidence of the twin towers. They have not even come close. Damn people!!  Here is a steel beam below. This is from the twin towers!  Here is a steal beam turning to dust and falling to the street or being blown into the air. A plane did not do this! Pancake collapse did not do this. You people who think you know about "science" don't know jack. That beam you see in this picture is not doing a pancake collapse. DUH!!! It is literally turning to dust!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The upper echelon of the 9-11 truth movement are intellectuals that have allowed their political views to taint their "research". Much like what has happened to the man made global warming nuts that put a political agenda ahead of science. So much so that science has been given a black eye. People can certainly view things differently, but when you read there is a "consensus" or something is "settled" it usually means that their theories are flawed and they wanted to stifle dissent. You mean like how quick everyone and their mother in the media was to pin this entire thing on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden before the dust even settled in the towers? kind of like how quick I would be to assume Bill hit Bob on the playground if Bill had been running around SAYING prior that he was going to hit Bob and Bob came to me with a black eye and I saw Bill standing nearby? with previous intelligence warning of this very incident, it would make sense for people to put those pieces together fairly quickly with just a quick review of airport cameras to see who BOARDED the plane,,, That's another thing, just WHERE were the black boxes from these flights, they somehow vanished. Secondly, how on earth did any of the passports not burn up in the flames from these things, you're gonna tell me they could somehow survive temperatures that high? That defies all logic and good sense. Beyond all that, regardless of suspicions to come to a conclusion that fast without even a proper investigation into the thing or a trial of any kind, screams bias. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Wed 01/04/12 08:18 AM
|
|
The upper echelon of the 9-11 truth movement are intellectuals that have allowed their political views to taint their "research". Much like what has happened to the man made global warming nuts that put a political agenda ahead of science. So much so that science has been given a black eye. People can certainly view things differently, but when you read there is a "consensus" or something is "settled" it usually means that their theories are flawed and they wanted to stifle dissent. The only thing covered up in 9-11 is the fact that the state was totally incompetent and allowed the attacks to happen. Not so they could go to war or steal oil, but simply because they are a reactive system that has no ability to proactively do anything except spend money.. So-called science has had a "black eye" for a while, especially during the Bush's reign of ignorance. Speaking of black eyes, you wanna talk about bad science? Look no further than tower 7. They concluded no explosives were used on it........wait for it WITHOUT EVER TESTING FOR THEM. Now if that's not junk science I don't know what the hell is. They had NOTHING to base their side on! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It does not matter how much time goes by or how much ridicule the "truthers" endure. They are not going to forgive and they are not going to FORGET the enormous cover-up surrounding the attack on 9-11.
They are not going to forgive and they are not going to forget the enormous cover-up surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy. The people (the elite responsible) are above and beyond prosecution and they are above the law, but they do not own the minds and the hearts of the people. We do not forgive, we do not forget, we do not accept their lies. We know who they are and we know what they are planning. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.debunking911.com/
Journal Of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Volume 1 Issue 4 is out! eSkeptic gives Debunking911.com a nod ~ How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism by John Ray ...Yet, in just under four years, the 9/11 “truth movement” has ground to a halt. Apart from the fundamental incoherence of their theories, the downfall of the 9/11 denier juggernaut was good old-fashioned skepticism at its finest, the kind that conjures visions of James Randi challenging psychics and faith healers on their home turfs and winning. Skeptics are better at their jobs than they think, and its important to give credit where credit is due. Staking their fortunes almost solely on Internet-based content may have been the 9/11 deniers’ biggest mistake. What seems like a perfect place for pseudoscience — the Internet is un-edited, without fact-checkers or minimum publishing standards of any kind — also became a perfect place for a rapid-response system of blogs and forums to fight back. Drawing on the freely available technical information from the NIST, FEMA, and academic journals which most colleges let their students access for free, skeptical sites like ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com and debunking911.com are able to defuse 9/11 denier claims as they arise... Important New Site ~ http://www.ae911truth.info addresses the misleading and deceitful conspiracy industries latest attempt at creating consumers for their products. From their blatant appeal to authority to misapplied science, ae911truth.info is a must for anyone seriously looking for truth. New link ~ Frequently Asked Questions - "Why do you use the term "debunking" in your name? Doesn't that prove you already think you're right?"... "Why do you hide your identity?" "Who funds your site?"...The answer to those questions and much more are in the FAQ. Please read the FAQ before sending e-mail. Your questions about this site may already be answered. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They dood it!
   
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The upper echelon of the 9-11 truth movement are intellectuals that have allowed their political views to taint their "research". Much like what has happened to the man made global warming nuts that put a political agenda ahead of science. So much so that science has been given a black eye. People can certainly view things differently, but when you read there is a "consensus" or something is "settled" it usually means that their theories are flawed and they wanted to stifle dissent. You mean like how quick everyone and their mother in the media was to pin this entire thing on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden before the dust even settled in the towers? I think that is a little selective use of the media. It seems fine to use the same media as some sort of proof when the argument of "explosions" is brought up. The media is not in a position to proclaim who committed the act any more than they can be used as a expert source on what caused "explosions". There had to have been "explosions" of some kind because of the way the towers fell in a free fall, not as if one story fell on top of another but as if the story beneath the one above collapsed. If one story fell upon another causing it to fail, there would have been some resistance and slowing down. Also, the left over debris was not enough. There should have been lots more. Instead, the rubble turned to dust and went into the air. This does not happen even in a normal demolition. This was a new weapon of some kind that took down the towers. It was certainly NOT the result of a fire or of a plane. The science in on the side of some other explanation, and not on the side of the official story. "It was certainly NOT the result of a fire or of a plane. The science in on the side of some other explanation, and not on the side of the official story." What is this based on? How is it scientifically proven that the combination of the plane crashes and fire didn't cause the collapse? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Wed 01/04/12 09:09 AM
|
|
The upper echelon of the 9-11 truth movement are intellectuals that have allowed their political views to taint their "research". Much like what has happened to the man made global warming nuts that put a political agenda ahead of science. So much so that science has been given a black eye. People can certainly view things differently, but when you read there is a "consensus" or something is "settled" it usually means that their theories are flawed and they wanted to stifle dissent. You mean like how quick everyone and their mother in the media was to pin this entire thing on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden before the dust even settled in the towers? I think that is a little selective use of the media. It seems fine to use the same media as some sort of proof when the argument of "explosions" is brought up. The media is not in a position to proclaim who committed the act any more than they can be used as a expert source on what caused "explosions". There had to have been "explosions" of some kind because of the way the towers fell in a free fall, not as if one story fell on top of another but as if the story beneath the one above collapsed. If one story fell upon another causing it to fail, there would have been some resistance and slowing down. Also, the left over debris was not enough. There should have been lots more. Instead, the rubble turned to dust and went into the air. This does not happen even in a normal demolition. This was a new weapon of some kind that took down the towers. It was certainly NOT the result of a fire or of a plane. The science in on the side of some other explanation, and not on the side of the official story. "It was certainly NOT the result of a fire or of a plane. The science in on the side of some other explanation, and not on the side of the official story." What is this based on? How is it scientifically proven that the combination of the plane crashes and fire didn't cause the collapse? It simply doesn't make any sense at all, a building the size of the trade center towers is NOT going to collapse into it's own footprint in about 5 seconds flat on a freefall from what happened to it, much less THREE buildings in the same day doing it. There is no way whatsoever that makes the tiniest bit of sense. Not one building in history before it had ever done such a thing, nor has any buildings since. It would take HOURS for a fire to destroy a building and bring it down, not seconds. Besides that, when you compare a normal controlled demolition to what happened on 9-11, they look just about exactly the same. Dan Rather even said as much about Tower 7. The idea that these buildings could have collapsed from fire alone more or less, goes against the basic laws of physics. Some sections weren't even hit by anything for goodness sake, yet they're somehow gonna fall down into nothingness? Give me a break. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a couple of links to pictures of the IRS building in Austin after that nut flew his small plane into it..
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/feb/18/small-plane-crashes-building-housing-irs/ http://www.brandonseidel.com/picture-echelon-building-after-plane-crash-austin-texas/ http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/crash_pilot_wrote_anti-irs_anti-corporate_screed.php anyone that thinks a wide body jet purposely flown into the WTC towers had nothing to do with the collapse is not in touch with reality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The upper echelon of the 9-11 truth movement are intellectuals that have allowed their political views to taint their "research". Much like what has happened to the man made global warming nuts that put a political agenda ahead of science. So much so that science has been given a black eye. People can certainly view things differently, but when you read there is a "consensus" or something is "settled" it usually means that their theories are flawed and they wanted to stifle dissent. You mean like how quick everyone and their mother in the media was to pin this entire thing on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden before the dust even settled in the towers? I think that is a little selective use of the media. It seems fine to use the same media as some sort of proof when the argument of "explosions" is brought up. The media is not in a position to proclaim who committed the act any more than they can be used as a expert source on what caused "explosions". There had to have been "explosions" of some kind because of the way the towers fell in a free fall, not as if one story fell on top of another but as if the story beneath the one above collapsed. If one story fell upon another causing it to fail, there would have been some resistance and slowing down. Also, the left over debris was not enough. There should have been lots more. Instead, the rubble turned to dust and went into the air. This does not happen even in a normal demolition. This was a new weapon of some kind that took down the towers. It was certainly NOT the result of a fire or of a plane. The science in on the side of some other explanation, and not on the side of the official story. "It was certainly NOT the result of a fire or of a plane. The science in on the side of some other explanation, and not on the side of the official story." What is this based on? How is it scientifically proven that the combination of the plane crashes and fire didn't cause the collapse? It simply doesn't make any sense at all, a building the size of the trade center towers is NOT going to collapse into it's own footprint in about 5 seconds flat on a freefall from what happened to it, much less THREE buildings in the same day doing it. There is no way whatsoever that makes the tiniest bit of sense. Not one building in history before it had ever done such a thing, nor has any buildings since. It would take HOURS for a fire to destroy a building and bring it down, not seconds. Besides that, when you compare a normal controlled demolition to what happened on 9-11, they look just about exactly the same. Dan Rather even said as much about Tower 7. The idea that these buildings could have collapsed from fire alone more or less, goes against the basic laws of physics. Some sections weren't even hit by anything for goodness sake, yet they're somehow gonna fall down into nothingness? Give me a break. "It simply doesn't make any sense at all, a building the size of the trade center towers is NOT going to collapse into it's own footprint in about 5 seconds flat on a freefall" Let's try to keep this somewhat factual.. The towers didn't collapse in 5 seconds. They didn't collapse at free fall speed either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The upper echelon of the 9-11 truth movement are intellectuals that have allowed their political views to taint their "research". Much like what has happened to the man made global warming nuts that put a political agenda ahead of science. So much so that science has been given a black eye. People can certainly view things differently, but when you read there is a "consensus" or something is "settled" it usually means that their theories are flawed and they wanted to stifle dissent. You mean like how quick everyone and their mother in the media was to pin this entire thing on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden before the dust even settled in the towers? I think that is a little selective use of the media. It seems fine to use the same media as some sort of proof when the argument of "explosions" is brought up. The media is not in a position to proclaim who committed the act any more than they can be used as a expert source on what caused "explosions". There had to have been "explosions" of some kind because of the way the towers fell in a free fall, not as if one story fell on top of another but as if the story beneath the one above collapsed. If one story fell upon another causing it to fail, there would have been some resistance and slowing down. Also, the left over debris was not enough. There should have been lots more. Instead, the rubble turned to dust and went into the air. This does not happen even in a normal demolition. This was a new weapon of some kind that took down the towers. It was certainly NOT the result of a fire or of a plane. The science in on the side of some other explanation, and not on the side of the official story. "It was certainly NOT the result of a fire or of a plane. The science in on the side of some other explanation, and not on the side of the official story." What is this based on? How is it scientifically proven that the combination of the plane crashes and fire didn't cause the collapse? Its based on evidence right in front of your eyes. All alternative theories and investigations by equally or more educated people that don't match the ridiculous official story, have only been made fun of and ignored. The official explanation HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. Far from it. It is ridiculous. Look at the debris. There a bunch of dust, not enough debris for a pancake collapse. That's just the tip of the iceberg. I feel like I'm talking to a wall. geeeze. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's try to keep this somewhat factual.. The towers didn't collapse in 5 seconds. They didn't collapse at free fall speed either. Yes they did. Have you not watched the videos? Strait down they fell, as if nothing was under them. That was not a pancake collapse. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a playmate I met on here who is UBER smart and also UBER paranoid and he is really into conspiracies..... He's super intellectual and entertaining...... You know me I humor people..... However, I tell him I could never ever be with him because the stuff he reads and believes about the gov't. etc. Makes me want to crawl under the covers trembling while clutching my cat and a loaded shot gun and scares me so bad I would be afraid out of fear I might accidentally shoot the Avon lady. Just wondering how many of you are into these conspiracies and how many of you really believe them and if you do believe them how do you sleep at night? I tell this guy if he ever starts posting, he is going to scare the heck out of people. I think most conspiracy theroy's are created by people with paranoid personality disorders who shouldicated, heavily. The only possible conspiracy I believe in is the JFK assasination was more then just Oswald. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's try to keep this somewhat factual.. The towers didn't collapse in 5 seconds. They didn't collapse at free fall speed either. Yes they did. Have you not watched the videos? Strait down they fell, as if nothing was under them. That was not a pancake collapse. Watching the videos alone should make anyone with a modicum of intelligence ask questions. WTC7 of course is unbelievable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The upper echelon of the 9-11 truth movement are intellectuals that have allowed their political views to taint their "research". Much like what has happened to the man made global warming nuts that put a political agenda ahead of science. So much so that science has been given a black eye. People can certainly view things differently, but when you read there is a "consensus" or something is "settled" it usually means that their theories are flawed and they wanted to stifle dissent. You mean like how quick everyone and their mother in the media was to pin this entire thing on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden before the dust even settled in the towers? I think that is a little selective use of the media. It seems fine to use the same media as some sort of proof when the argument of "explosions" is brought up. The media is not in a position to proclaim who committed the act any more than they can be used as a expert source on what caused "explosions". There had to have been "explosions" of some kind because of the way the towers fell in a free fall, not as if one story fell on top of another but as if the story beneath the one above collapsed. If one story fell upon another causing it to fail, there would have been some resistance and slowing down. Also, the left over debris was not enough. There should have been lots more. Instead, the rubble turned to dust and went into the air. This does not happen even in a normal demolition. This was a new weapon of some kind that took down the towers. It was certainly NOT the result of a fire or of a plane. The science in on the side of some other explanation, and not on the side of the official story. "It was certainly NOT the result of a fire or of a plane. The science in on the side of some other explanation, and not on the side of the official story." What is this based on? How is it scientifically proven that the combination of the plane crashes and fire didn't cause the collapse? It simply doesn't make any sense at all, a building the size of the trade center towers is NOT going to collapse into it's own footprint in about 5 seconds flat on a freefall from what happened to it, much less THREE buildings in the same day doing it. There is no way whatsoever that makes the tiniest bit of sense. Not one building in history before it had ever done such a thing, nor has any buildings since. It would take HOURS for a fire to destroy a building and bring it down, not seconds. Besides that, when you compare a normal controlled demolition to what happened on 9-11, they look just about exactly the same. Dan Rather even said as much about Tower 7. The idea that these buildings could have collapsed from fire alone more or less, goes against the basic laws of physics. Some sections weren't even hit by anything for goodness sake, yet they're somehow gonna fall down into nothingness? Give me a break. "It simply doesn't make any sense at all, a building the size of the trade center towers is NOT going to collapse into it's own footprint in about 5 seconds flat on a freefall" Let's try to keep this somewhat factual.. The towers didn't collapse in 5 seconds. They didn't collapse at free fall speed either. Um.......wow. Were you watching the same video I was? You make yourself look incredibly foolish when you make a statement like that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Watching the videos alone should make anyone with a modicum of intelligence ask questions. WTC7 of course is unbelievable. Ummm... You realize that anyone with a "modicum" of intelligence... ...isn't going to know wtf modicum even means? o.o |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cause we all know wiki is so credible.........  I just posted on wikipedia that.. "Obama was born without a man part, but does have a female part. I went into great detail; and now half the world is starting to think that Obama really doesn't have a man piece." My College Professor used to say: "Don't EVER use Wikipedia as a reference to ANY report, research project and/or paper for any of your classes." You would literally get an instant 'F', if you failed to follow that simple rule. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your impulse to run and hide is valid. Go with your gut!  Conspiracy theories share many common attributes. They are all conjecture with no evidence. There is no reason to fear conspiracy theories - they are paper tigers. Most of them revolve around various ancient recycled themes. Read all about them here and dispel any lingering doubts. Base your reality on demonstrable evidence and never on innuendo. And stay away from the conspiracy theorists whose warped and unprovable world of shadows and fantasy should only scare themselves! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory Here's some FACTS for you. Fox is a Government News Station - Fact. Fox has their Broadcasts pre-approved by Government Officials - Fact. Wikipedia has over 5,000 'believed' entries hand written by 10 year olds that know how to use spell check. Wikipedia is one of the least legitimate research search engines on the web. The Illuminati does exist. - Fact ------------------------------------- Now while I could be here all day.. I'm not wasting my energy. Secondly, or maybe fifthly (if that's a word): I don't believe in about 97.8% of the Conspiracies out there. However, that does NOT mean there is NO validity whatsoever behind each and all claims. To tell someone 'Believe only what you see with the facts' is naive and, no offense, is to be very 'blind'. So, if on the news they said, 'All the Taliban have been captured or killed.' Yet that same day, a man screaming 'Long Live the Taliban' blows up the local mall... On the evening news they report the situation chimed with, 'This terrorist was not associated with the Taliban but he is believed to be part of the '****' terrorist faction.' You would immediately accept that as fact? That doesn't make you 'smart' or 'safe'. That makes you a gullible, expendable tool. What you SHOULD believe, is what YOU yourself see. Take everything else under consideration. And fyi, no, I'm not a conspiracy freak; however, I do pay attention to their words, because you never know what may have some 'truth' in it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sin_and_Sorrow
on
Wed 01/04/12 09:23 PM
|
|
On a final rant.
You used the term "Paper Tigers". Did you know that it is also a band? One of the lines from their lyrics say, "This new war will get you.. ...it will not protect you." Also adding: "I will be there.. ..when you turn out the lights." This little comment is to defend yours so I do not seem bias. It is truly very easy to compile a 'conspiracy'. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Like it says in the creed of the assassins: "Nothing is real. Everything is permitted." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your impulse to run and hide is valid. Go with your gut! Conspiracy theories share many common attributes. They are all conjecture with no evidence. There is no reason to fear conspiracy theories - they are paper tigers. Most of them revolve around various ancient recycled themes. Read all about them here and dispel any lingering doubts. Base your reality on demonstrable evidence and never on innuendo. And stay away from the conspiracy theorists whose warped and unprovable world of shadows and fantasy should only scare themselves! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory Here's some FACTS for you. Fox is a Government News Station - Fact. Fox has their Broadcasts pre-approved by Government Officials - Fact. Wikipedia has over 5,000 'believed' entries hand written by 10 year olds that know how to use spell check. Wikipedia is one of the least legitimate research search engines on the web. The Illuminati does exist. - Fact ------------------------------------- Now while I could be here all day.. I'm not wasting my energy. Secondly, or maybe fifthly (if that's a word): I don't believe in about 97.8% of the Conspiracies out there. However, that does NOT mean there is NO validity whatsoever behind each and all claims. To tell someone 'Believe only what you see with the facts' is naive and, no offense, is to be very 'blind'. So, if on the news they said, 'All the Taliban have been captured or killed.' Yet that same day, a man screaming 'Long Live the Taliban' blows up the local mall... On the evening news they report the situation chimed with, 'This terrorist was not associated with the Taliban but he is believed to be part of the '****' terrorist faction.' You would immediately accept that as fact? That doesn't make you 'smart' or 'safe'. That makes you a gullible, expendable tool. What you SHOULD believe, is what YOU yourself see. Take everything else under consideration. And fyi, no, I'm not a conspiracy freak; however, I do pay attention to their words, because you never know what may have some 'truth' in it. The Illuminati were wiped out by the Catholic Church, none left after the Purge. I bet you believe there's an actual group called the Priory of Scion also eh? |
|
|
|
|
