100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Except the structural damage was the biggest contributor to the collapse. Iso there was ni cascading explosions foe this building either.  They said it was the fire. Its realy hard to discuss this topic honestly with people so willfully misinformed. Provide a link to the 9-11 report in which they say fire caused the collapse.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Except the structural damage was the biggest contributor to the collapse. Iso there was ni cascading explosions foe this building either. They said it was the fire. Its realy hard to discuss this topic honestly with people so willfully misinformed. Provide a link to the 9-11 report in which they say fire caused the collapse.. Actually, what they say is that it was a combination of the plane and the fire. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
InvictusV
on
Tue 04/17/12 04:54 AM
|
|
Except the structural damage was the biggest contributor to the collapse. Iso there was ni cascading explosions foe this building either. They said it was the fire. Its realy hard to discuss this topic honestly with people so willfully misinformed. Provide a link to the 9-11 report in which they say fire caused the collapse.. Actually, what they say is that it was a combination of the plane and the fire. I went back and looked and I found nothing in the actual commission report regarding the reasons for collapse. The only investigation concluded before the release of the 9-11 commission report was FEMAs. It was so pathetic that Commerce commenced the NIST investigation. The MIT calculations of the impact damage caused by the planes is very compelling.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it is semantics anyway. The government didn't initially do a formal report on "why the buildings fell" because it was obvious that fully fueled planes hit the buildings, caused a huge fire, and less than an hour later they fell.
The formal report later issued by the folks associated with ASCE and peer reviewed and "accepted by the government" stated that it was a combination of the impact of the plane and the fire. The damage by the plane itself was not adequate to bring the buildings down but the crash knocked off a lot of fireproofing which allowed the steel structure to heat up more quickly. Subsequent analysis by other ASCE members and submitted for peer review showed that the fire would have taken the building down by itself. This fact was surprising to many scientists but not to practicing structural engineers since they already knew that is how it works. So the argument is moot. The fire could not have existed without the planes since the planes were the source of the fire. The term "fireproofing" is false. The sheetrock, sprayed on asbestos, or sprayed on concrete simply slows the rate at which the steel heats up in a fire. It is usually rated for an hour, 1-1/2 hours, or two hours based on tests run by Factory Mutual or Underwriter's Laboratories. The "fire" used the the test is the equivalent of a couch catching on fire nearby. The "one hour rating" of one hour fireproofing does not mean you actually have one hour of safety in ANY fire before the building falls. It is just a rating. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Tue 04/17/12 05:48 AM
|
|
Feds: Fire took down building next to twin towers By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer
17 minutes ago Friday 22nd August '08 GAITHERSBURG, Md. - Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories. The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan in New York. On Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but skeptics long have argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure. Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a modern skyscraper. "The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," said Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the NIST team. Investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water. The building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred about seven hours after the twin towers came down. That fueled suspicion that someone intentionally blew up the building in a controlled demolition. Critics like Mike Berger of the group 9/11 Truth said he wasn't buying the government's explanation. "Their explanation simply isn't sufficient. We're being lied to," he said, arguing that there is other evidence suggesting explosives were used on the building. Sunder said his team investigated the possibility that an explosion inside the building brought it down, but found there was no large boom or other noise that would have occurred with such a detonation. Investigators also created a giant computer model of the collapse, based partly on news footage from CBS News, that they say shows that internal column failure brought down the building. Investigators also ruled out the possibility that the collapse was caused by fires from a substantial amount of diesel fuel that was stored in the building, most of it for generators for the city's emergency operations command center. The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure. "When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain," said Sunder. The NIST investigators issued more than a dozen building recommendations as a result of their inquiry, most of which repeat earlier recommendations from their investigation into the collapse of the two large towers. In both instances, investigators concluded that extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed. The recommendations include building skyscrapers with stronger connections and framing systems to resist the effects of thermal expansion, and structural systems designed to prevent damage to one part of a building from spreading to other parts. No one was killed in the collapse of building 7 because it had been fully evacuated. A new, slightly taller World Trade Center 7 opened in 2006. A spokesman for the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, developer Larry Silverstein, praised the government's work. "Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokesman Dara McQuillan. In discussing the findings, the investigator Sunder acknowledged that some may still not be convinced, but insisted the science behind their findings is "incredibly conclusive." "The public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said," he said, adding: "The obvious stares you in the face." and again we have those cursed silent Explosives!   http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/4213805 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the building simply fell, one floor on top of another floor, as the official story would have people believe, then look at that picture and tell me where is the building? It is clearly being exploded and it is clearly turning into dust. There are no floors falling on other floors. I don't know what scientists and engineers you are referring to. There seems to be many who would disagree with you. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is a non-profit corporation. We are a non-partisan association of architects, engineers and affiliates dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing truths about the “collapses” of the 3 World Trade Center high-rises on September 11, 2001. ■ Dispelling misinformation with scientific facts and forensic evidence ■ Educating and motivating thousands of architects and engineers and the public at large ■ Procuring a truly independent 9/11 investigation with subpoena power ■ Achieving 9/11 Truth mainstream media coverage http://www.ae911truth.org/ and i could show you just a many that say the opposite...you should learn your physics yourself, not what you read on some truther site. they are going to be biased, and if you learn outside of 911 material, you can see how this actually worked... Mighty Moe you should become a brain surgeon too. Don't tell me what I should learn. You have already demonstrated by referencing Popular Mechanics that you have no clue what is going on, so don't start telling me I should learn physics. I don't need to learn it. There are plenty of people who know much more than I do that totally have debunked the official story of 9-11 who have much more education than you or me. You choose who you believe and I will choose who I believe. But one thing is for sure, I can't believe the unbelievable, and that, my friend, is the official 9-11 commission report and all the other official government accounts. They have proven to me first hand that they are liars and a criminal network of massive size. So, no thanks. what would a brain surgeon have to do with 911 and the physics applied with it? Well let's see... if you were a brain surgeon, then maybe you could figure out why so many people have been brain washed into believing the official 9-11 report. (but.. my point is, not all physicists agree, and if I had wanted to go into that profession or be an "engineer" or a flunky lab tech, or a scientist.... I would have. I don't need anyone telling me what I "should learn." It is not necessary for me to be a physicist when there are plenty who have come to opposite conclusion about 9-11 as is reported by our esteemed world leaders.) You entire statement is false. You don't understand physics or those who study the subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No you don't need to study the science of matter and its motion to understand how and why matter moves as it does. That's a rediculous theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feds: Fire took down building next to twin towers By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer 17 minutes ago Friday 22nd August '08 GAITHERSBURG, Md. - Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories. The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan in New York. On Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but skeptics long have argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure. Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a modern skyscraper. "The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," said Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the NIST team. Investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water. The building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred about seven hours after the twin towers came down. That fueled suspicion that someone intentionally blew up the building in a controlled demolition. Critics like Mike Berger of the group 9/11 Truth said he wasn't buying the government's explanation. "Their explanation simply isn't sufficient. We're being lied to," he said, arguing that there is other evidence suggesting explosives were used on the building. Sunder said his team investigated the possibility that an explosion inside the building brought it down, but found there was no large boom or other noise that would have occurred with such a detonation. Investigators also created a giant computer model of the collapse, based partly on news footage from CBS News, that they say shows that internal column failure brought down the building. Investigators also ruled out the possibility that the collapse was caused by fires from a substantial amount of diesel fuel that was stored in the building, most of it for generators for the city's emergency operations command center. The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure. "When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain," said Sunder. The NIST investigators issued more than a dozen building recommendations as a result of their inquiry, most of which repeat earlier recommendations from their investigation into the collapse of the two large towers. In both instances, investigators concluded that extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed. The recommendations include building skyscrapers with stronger connections and framing systems to resist the effects of thermal expansion, and structural systems designed to prevent damage to one part of a building from spreading to other parts. No one was killed in the collapse of building 7 because it had been fully evacuated. A new, slightly taller World Trade Center 7 opened in 2006. A spokesman for the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, developer Larry Silverstein, praised the government's work. "Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokesman Dara McQuillan. In discussing the findings, the investigator Sunder acknowledged that some may still not be convinced, but insisted the science behind their findings is "incredibly conclusive." "The public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said," he said, adding: "The obvious stares you in the face." and again we have those cursed silent Explosives! http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/4213805 My last two posts about the plane and fire were about the twin towers. Building 7 was an odd building with twin vertical trusses used instead of standard interior columns. Apparently, a steel beam that fell from the towers punched out part of one of the two vertical support trusses. Other falling debris set the fires for which there were no sprinklers to combat. As the fires weakened the structure, redistribution occurred which started a slow failure of the entire building. This movement would have caused similar groans and popping noises as were heard in the twin towers, that would cause officials to "pull" the firemen out of the building. Eventually, the damaged vertical truss gave way transferring the rest of it's supported weight to the other main support which was unable to withstand the interior load and buckled. The ASCE site showed an analysis which used a computer model to go through the same scenario and produced an animated video of the failure that matched the actual video of building seven coming down. Building 7 did not fall straight down. Video shows a part of roof over the damaged vertical truss sagging and then tilting away from the undamaged vertical truss. The lone support was quickly overwhelmed by P-delta effects and failed also. With no interior supports the building then fell straight down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Tue 04/17/12 08:51 AM
|
|
Feds: Fire took down building next to twin towers By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer 17 minutes ago Friday 22nd August '08 GAITHERSBURG, Md. - Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories. The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan in New York. On Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but skeptics long have argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure. Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a modern skyscraper. "The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," said Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the NIST team. Investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water. The building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred about seven hours after the twin towers came down. That fueled suspicion that someone intentionally blew up the building in a controlled demolition. Critics like Mike Berger of the group 9/11 Truth said he wasn't buying the government's explanation. "Their explanation simply isn't sufficient. We're being lied to," he said, arguing that there is other evidence suggesting explosives were used on the building. Sunder said his team investigated the possibility that an explosion inside the building brought it down, but found there was no large boom or other noise that would have occurred with such a detonation. Investigators also created a giant computer model of the collapse, based partly on news footage from CBS News, that they say shows that internal column failure brought down the building. Investigators also ruled out the possibility that the collapse was caused by fires from a substantial amount of diesel fuel that was stored in the building, most of it for generators for the city's emergency operations command center. The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure. "When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain," said Sunder. The NIST investigators issued more than a dozen building recommendations as a result of their inquiry, most of which repeat earlier recommendations from their investigation into the collapse of the two large towers. In both instances, investigators concluded that extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed. The recommendations include building skyscrapers with stronger connections and framing systems to resist the effects of thermal expansion, and structural systems designed to prevent damage to one part of a building from spreading to other parts. No one was killed in the collapse of building 7 because it had been fully evacuated. A new, slightly taller World Trade Center 7 opened in 2006. A spokesman for the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, developer Larry Silverstein, praised the government's work. "Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokesman Dara McQuillan. In discussing the findings, the investigator Sunder acknowledged that some may still not be convinced, but insisted the science behind their findings is "incredibly conclusive." "The public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said," he said, adding: "The obvious stares you in the face." and again we have those cursed silent Explosives! http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/4213805 My last two posts about the plane and fire were about the twin towers. Building 7 was an odd building with twin vertical trusses used instead of standard interior columns. Apparently, a steel beam that fell from the towers punched out part of one of the two vertical support trusses. Other falling debris set the fires for which there were no sprinklers to combat. As the fires weakened the structure, redistribution occurred which started a slow failure of the entire building. This movement would have caused similar groans and popping noises as were heard in the twin towers, that would cause officials to "pull" the firemen out of the building. Eventually, the damaged vertical truss gave way transferring the rest of it's supported weight to the other main support which was unable to withstand the interior load and buckled. The ASCE site showed an analysis which used a computer model to go through the same scenario and produced an animated video of the failure that matched the actual video of building seven coming down. Building 7 did not fall straight down. Video shows a part of roof over the damaged vertical truss sagging and then tilting away from the undamaged vertical truss. The lone support was quickly overwhelmed by P-delta effects and failed also. With no interior supports the building then fell straight down. To them the Building was brought down with Explosives,regardless! how come everything remained intact and functioning,and no Explosives cooked off during the Fire doesn't matter to them! Just thought I bring up WTC7,since that is even a bigger Bone of Discontent to them than the Twin-Towers! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Chazster
on
Tue 04/17/12 08:54 AM
|
|
But Conrad don't you know that they are magical explosives. They are immune to fire, invisible,silent,and can plant themselves inside a building.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But Conrad don't you know that they are magical explosives. They are immune to fire, invisible,silent,and can plant themselves inside a building. When were they invented? Or were they found at Roswell?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But Conrad don't you know that they are magical explosives. They are immune to fire, invisible,silent,and can plant themselves inside a building. When were they invented? Or were they found at Roswell? "The Company" invented them. They thought it would be a good idea to use them so there involvement would be easily detected. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But Conrad don't you know that they are magical explosives. They are immune to fire, invisible,silent,and can plant themselves inside a building. When were they invented? Or were they found at Roswell? "The Company" invented them. They thought it would be a good idea to use them so there involvement would be easily detected. Will we never be rid of them?   
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 04/17/12 10:25 AM
|
|
If the building simply fell, one floor on top of another floor, as the official story would have people believe, then look at that picture and tell me where is the building? It is clearly being exploded and it is clearly turning into dust. There are no floors falling on other floors. I don't know what scientists and engineers you are referring to. There seems to be many who would disagree with you. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is a non-profit corporation. We are a non-partisan association of architects, engineers and affiliates dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing truths about the “collapses” of the 3 World Trade Center high-rises on September 11, 2001. ■ Dispelling misinformation with scientific facts and forensic evidence ■ Educating and motivating thousands of architects and engineers and the public at large ■ Procuring a truly independent 9/11 investigation with subpoena power ■ Achieving 9/11 Truth mainstream media coverage http://www.ae911truth.org/ and i could show you just a many that say the opposite...you should learn your physics yourself, not what you read on some truther site. they are going to be biased, and if you learn outside of 911 material, you can see how this actually worked... Mighty Moe you should become a brain surgeon too. Don't tell me what I should learn. You have already demonstrated by referencing Popular Mechanics that you have no clue what is going on, so don't start telling me I should learn physics. I don't need to learn it. There are plenty of people who know much more than I do that totally have debunked the official story of 9-11 who have much more education than you or me. You choose who you believe and I will choose who I believe. But one thing is for sure, I can't believe the unbelievable, and that, my friend, is the official 9-11 commission report and all the other official government accounts. They have proven to me first hand that they are liars and a criminal network of massive size. So, no thanks. what would a brain surgeon have to do with 911 and the physics applied with it? Well let's see... if you were a brain surgeon, then maybe you could figure out why so many people have been brain washed into believing the official 9-11 report. (but.. my point is, not all physicists agree, and if I had wanted to go into that profession or be an "engineer" or a flunky lab tech, or a scientist.... I would have. I don't need anyone telling me what I "should learn." It is not necessary for me to be a physicist when there are plenty who have come to opposite conclusion about 9-11 as is reported by our esteemed world leaders.) You entire statement is false. You don't understand physics or those who study the subject. I don't even know what statement you are referring to. I think you just want to argue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 04/17/12 10:29 AM
|
|
Feds: Fire took down building next to twin towers By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer 17 minutes ago Friday 22nd August '08 GAITHERSBURG, Md. - Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories. The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan in New York. On Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but skeptics long have argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure. Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a modern skyscraper. "The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," said Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the NIST team. Investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water. The building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred about seven hours after the twin towers came down. That fueled suspicion that someone intentionally blew up the building in a controlled demolition. Critics like Mike Berger of the group 9/11 Truth said he wasn't buying the government's explanation. "Their explanation simply isn't sufficient. We're being lied to," he said, arguing that there is other evidence suggesting explosives were used on the building. Sunder said his team investigated the possibility that an explosion inside the building brought it down, but found there was no large boom or other noise that would have occurred with such a detonation. Investigators also created a giant computer model of the collapse, based partly on news footage from CBS News, that they say shows that internal column failure brought down the building. Investigators also ruled out the possibility that the collapse was caused by fires from a substantial amount of diesel fuel that was stored in the building, most of it for generators for the city's emergency operations command center. The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure. "When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain," said Sunder. The NIST investigators issued more than a dozen building recommendations as a result of their inquiry, most of which repeat earlier recommendations from their investigation into the collapse of the two large towers. In both instances, investigators concluded that extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed. The recommendations include building skyscrapers with stronger connections and framing systems to resist the effects of thermal expansion, and structural systems designed to prevent damage to one part of a building from spreading to other parts. No one was killed in the collapse of building 7 because it had been fully evacuated. A new, slightly taller World Trade Center 7 opened in 2006. A spokesman for the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, developer Larry Silverstein, praised the government's work. "Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokesman Dara McQuillan. In discussing the findings, the investigator Sunder acknowledged that some may still not be convinced, but insisted the science behind their findings is "incredibly conclusive." "The public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said," he said, adding: "The obvious stares you in the face." and again we have those cursed silent Explosives! http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/4213805 My last two posts about the plane and fire were about the twin towers. Building 7 was an odd building with twin vertical trusses used instead of standard interior columns. Apparently, a steel beam that fell from the towers punched out part of one of the two vertical support trusses. Other falling debris set the fires for which there were no sprinklers to combat. As the fires weakened the structure, redistribution occurred which started a slow failure of the entire building. This movement would have caused similar groans and popping noises as were heard in the twin towers, that would cause officials to "pull" the firemen out of the building. Eventually, the damaged vertical truss gave way transferring the rest of it's supported weight to the other main support which was unable to withstand the interior load and buckled. The ASCE site showed an analysis which used a computer model to go through the same scenario and produced an animated video of the failure that matched the actual video of building seven coming down. Building 7 did not fall straight down. Video shows a part of roof over the damaged vertical truss sagging and then tilting away from the undamaged vertical truss. The lone support was quickly overwhelmed by P-delta effects and failed also. With no interior supports the building then fell straight down. To them the Building was brought down with Explosives,regardless! how come everything remained intact and functioning,and no Explosives cooked off during the Fire doesn't matter to them! Just thought I bring up WTC7,since that is even a bigger Bone of Discontent to them than the Twin-Towers! Conrad I have a book called the Mysterious collapse of World Trade center 7.--Why the final Official Report about 9-11 is Unscientific and false. If you want to get into a real discussion, I'm willing, but all you ever do is post rolling heads. Therefore that is what I intend to do to you people who don't really have anything real or intelligent to say and only post mocking remarks and rolling heads. -------------> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 04/17/12 10:34 AM
|
|
Conspiracy Theorists are geniuses. They form the most amazing segment of Earth's population. Profound researchers all, they dive into the very fabric of reality uncovering the grim truths concealed beneath all which is held true by today's modern population. Sadly, the number of conspiracy theorists is believed to have declined in recent years. This is widely believed to have been the work of the CIA, or possibly the dark forces of Zionism. Seriously! Open your eyes! We have pictures, and some of them look only slightly blurred! Becoming a Conspiracy Theorist Not an easy task. First, not everyone is cut from the right thread to become a conspiracy theorist. A particular mix of rapid analytical ability must combine with a phenominal talent for creative deduction. (See Creativity ). Second, an aspiring conspiracy theorist must be a vehement individualist. You have to truly know inside that your ideas are inherently more valid than everyone else's. Science, public education, religion, and your teachers telling you that you're a ****ing psycho... all this must be tossed to the side in favor of the truth you know is within you. It's easiest to start small. Begin with something already established. The Kennedy assassination is a good choice, and an entry-point for the burgeoning conspiracy theorist. Kennedy was a great president. Why would he be shot? The answer is simple. A world leader of his talent might very well have caused world peace to flood o'er the lands. If there was peace, we'd have no-one left to kill. Ah yes, we can easily see that the Kennedy Assasination was a set up. Never mind that thousands of people took tens of thousands of pictures, and captured virtually every single angle of the motorcade procession, from every conceivable point. The CIA had already guessed that NOBODY would be looking at that grassy knoll, or the book suppository. Ignore all that "factual evidence" crap. You've seen the movie 13 Days. The Joint Chiefs hated that ****ing hippie in the oval office. They set it all up. Locating Existing Conspiracy Theorists Conspiracy Theorists are EVERYWHERE! And We are being WATCHED! I tell you it's the CIA! They are watching over us because they see the threat WE present! Or, the threat they present. Yeah, 'cause I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I believe everything that the government tells me, because America is run by good and honest people who only hide important military secrets, and even then, only when absolutely necessary... Yeah... Conspiracy theorists are notoriously hard to locate. They aren't on Uncyclopedia, that's for sure. If you do a websearch on conspiracy theorists, all you'll find are historic documentation unearthed by government researchers tracking down filthy terrorists... Conrad this is a personal jab at a serious subject meant to mock anyone who questions the official government fabrication about 9-11. Typical tactic of THE COMPANY. Admit it, you work for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All the scientific evidence makes it crystal clear that the buildings fell for one reason - because they were hit by Islamic terrorists from Al-Qaida piloting two huge planes full of fuel and innocent victims. Planes hit at full speed resulting in impact damage and fire damage which damaged buildings so severely that they could not support themselves and collapsed also damaging nearby buildings which also were destroyed. There is no disagreement any longer among the scientists and engineers who have meticulously studied 911. There is no dispute as to the cause of the disaster at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All the scientific evidence makes it crystal clear that the buildings fell for one reason - because they were hit by Islamic terrorists from Al-Qaida piloting two huge planes full of fuel and innocent victims. Planes hit at full speed resulting in impact damage and fire damage which damaged buildings so severely that they could not support themselves and collapsed also damaging nearby buildings which also were destroyed. There is no disagreement any longer among the scientists and engineers who have meticulously studied 911. There is no dispute as to the cause of the disaster at all. That is hilarious, and a bald faced lie. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conrad this is a personal jab at a serious subject meant to mock anyone who questions the official government fabrication about 9-11. Typical tactic of THE COMPANY. Admit it, you work for them. Methinks you are on to something there.
|
|
|
|
|
