|
100 conspiracies:pimp
|
Quote:
While at it, please explain how history channel is a controlled media outlet as well. They also did a great job of debunking 911 conspiracy nutcases such as yourself |
Quote:
|
Here ya guys go straight from the horse's mouth:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100 |
I have been saying it for years. Nobody here will listen.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
100%....
|
Quote:
|
Hi Franck
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
All I mean is, surely we can show that with no fire retardant in place and with pure exposed steel, we can concentrate a jet fuel fire and get some measurements.. :2 cents: |
Why would this guy go on TV and lie about something like this? He's not selling anything. He will get nothing but grief over this I'm sure. What's his angle?
|
Quote:
Then the WHOLE country with a few exceptions believed this story - the rest, the "insane conspiracy idiots" who said Hitler did it then turned out to be right.. But ofcourse that was 1933.. we're talking 2001 here - all the evil the world is gone a long time ago :) So, is it really possible that 99.99% of the population is the fools here? Tell a lie big enough and people will believe it... |
Why are you even arguing with these idiots anymore? Let Kandah and Martin and all the other looney tunes believe whatever they want. It's pointless to try and teach the stupid.
When people bring this shit up around me in person I just call them stupid and send them away. |
you can't argue with cultists.
you might as well try to convince a moonie on the corner that sun myung moon isn't the son of god. |
Well if you watch the video, the guy isn't stating anything as a theory. He is saying "hey how come people are finding thermite in the wtc dust?" and he's asking for an investigation. Not saying what he thinks happen, but saying what would have needed to have happened and that hey, why not just ask these people for records of who came and went and why. etc. 668 people really, not just 1 loon.
btw: the womans body language is funny if you watch the video. She seems like she's trying out for a movie with her overdramatic poses, lol. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
As if somehow one word "pull" being used by someone as all the proof that's needed and you can completely ignore all of the obvius common sense that goes the other way. I mean, in order for this to be proof of anything at all you need to first assume a whole bunch of things. At very least you would have to assume: 1) There is a massive goverment conspiracy. 2) The New York Fire Department, a group of regular working joes that took heavy, heavy losses on 9/11 are in some capacity in on it. 3) The New York Fire Department does demolitions of buildings 4) Silverstein speaks like a demolition Engineer even though he clearly is not one. 5) Silverstein commands the NYFD and they just bring down buildings at his every whim. 6) WTC7 was somehow wired for demolition with nobody noticing a single thing. Doesn't that seem like a crazy number of logically flawed assumptions to support a single word as being "evidence"? How can you be surprised people call you lunatics and morons given the crazy things you consider as "evidence". |
Dude, what he's ASKING is how come we found thermite?
It's not used in construction. It's not used in jets or jet fuel, so why aren't we wondering how it got there? Perhaps we need to erect a building and fill it with desks and shit and light a large amount of jet fuel in it and let it burn. This should not be hard to put to bed once and for all. See if it forms molten iron with thermite in it. |
Quote:
What's not logical is to hold up little bits of sparatic evidence and claim that it's absolute proof of a controlled demolition, holographic planes, cruise missle in to the Penetagon, or yada, yada, yada. The only way to jump to those conclusions based on the spotty "evidence" is to completely ignore the bulk of the available evidence. That is to say, that although we can't know everything, what we do know overwhelmingly debunks much of the crazy conspiracy theories. Put it this way. If you were to take the very best conspiracy argument and present that in a neutral court against the official story, well, the official story would come out on top every time. That's because the bulk of the evidence supports it. The bulk of the evidence does NOT support controlled demolition or any other such nonsense. I know you won't understand that because you feel like there's some purpose in your life being able to sleuth out the truth on You Tube. |
Quote:
and NO demolition crew in their right mind would have gone into that building to set the shit up right then. only way it COULD have been "pulled" was if they'd set shit up WAY in advance. |
Quote:
On another note you've never heard me claim anything about fake planes, reptiles or anything of the sort. Anyway moving on. |
I agree too that nothing yet tells me "omg it was planned!". Not even close honestly. I mean shit, those planes full of people were plowed into those buildings.. thats not really fake-able.
But some stuff sure is weird. Fire departments all over the planet have places where they do burns to train. It would seem totally do able to burn some jet fuel on some steel and monitor it until it melts.. or whatever. |
Follow the money.. 9-11 was an inside Zionist Jew job. Their companies make millions from insurance on the buildings, then US sends their Christian Soldiers off to war with the Arabs and surround Iran, Israel go into West Bank and wipe out tons of Palestinians.
|
Quote:
Small details like that arent important. |
Quote:
Funny how everyone forgets about the planes and cries about fuel only. Fucking morons. |
Quote:
take off your blinders. don't be sheep. |
Quote:
B. Book deal C. Movie rights D. Guest spot on Tonight Show E. All of the above F. None of the above, he's just a good samaritan/martyr type who's willing to step up and take one for team conspiracy. I'd like to know too. Those are all the choices I can think of. |
Does anyone have that link to a wiki topic or other for: Conspiracy theories that later turned out to be true?
|
Quote:
And back on topic, I have never seen enough evidence to lead me to believe that 9/11 was an "inside job," although there are a lot of strange coincidences, but at the same time I don't sit here and act like I know exactly what happened that day based on what the government and media told me. The main point is a lot of you guys on here act like know-it-alls when you really don't know shit about shit. There's no way you could, you're regular people like everyone else on here. All of your "knowledge" is based on the assumption that the government and media would never purposefully deceive you, which is a problem most Americans have today unfortunately. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Recreate all the conditions that we think were present is what I'm saying. Scale it down since otherwise you'll need to use a test sled and slam a fuselage into a structure. Which you could do of course, but one would think that if the idea is that a super fuckign hot and persistent fire melted unprotected steel, then just sit there with a fuckwad of fuel on a freaking steel plate and you can get valid readings. But I'm an advocate of doing a full scale remote crash, sure thing. Hopefully you'll at least allow for it to be without thousands of people? Or is that going to invalidate the testing for ya? Sheesh. I'm the one standing on the middle ground here, it's the people with closed minds on both sides that are the fucking morons. Just for the record. |
it's hard to think if that's true
|
Quote:
Kind of like... well, kind of like Bush in '01. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
After World War II, moves by Marinus van der Lubbe's brother, Jan van der Lubbe were made in an attempt to overturn the verdict against his brother. In 1980, after lengthy complaints, a West German court overturned the verdict, but this was protested by the state prosecutor. The case was re-examined by Federal Court of Justice of Germany for three years, until in 1983 the court made a final decision over the matter, overturning the result of the earlier 1980 trial on grounds that there was no basis for it, making it therefore illegal. However, in January 2008, the Federal Court of Justice of Germany finally overturned the death penalty verdict based on a 1998 German law that makes it possible to overturn certain cases of Nazi injustice.[2] The determination of the court was based on the premise that the National Socialist regime was by definition unjust, and since the death sentence in this case was politically motivated, it was likely to have contained an extension of that injustice; the finding was independent of the factual question of whether or not it was van der Lubbe who actually set the fire." "Historians disagree as to whether Van der Lubbe was the sole culprit of the fire, despite Nuremberg testimony and other circumstantial evidence suggesting that he did not act alone. Some historians (especially Bahar and Kugel) believe that he was an unconscious pawn of the Gestapo, who recruited him for the event, though controversy about this exists too." "Marinus van der Lubbe was officially pardoned by the German state in January 2008, 75 years after his conviction and beheading. In 1967 a Berlin court had symbolically changed the sentence of van der Lubbe to an eight-year prison and in 1980 the same court had lifted the sentence altogether. In 1981 a West German court overturned the conviction of van der Lubbe on the grounds that he was insane, however campaigners pressed for full state pardon on account of van der Lubbe having been convicted by a Nazi court. The full state pardon of van der Lubbe was made possible by a law passed in Germany in 1998. This exoneration is symbolic and will not lead to compensation for van der Lubbe's heirs." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinus_van_der_Lubbe |
Quote:
WTC7 was not made mention of in the 9-11 commission. If all events on that day which had any relation to the attacks were to be included in the report, and the report is the official version, then you sir - being so objective - would have to then conclude that WTC7 was excluded from the report because it was not destroyed as a result of the attacks. There's no wiggle room here either. If it was destroyed as a result of the terrorist attacks of 9-11 then it would HAVE to be in the report. Here it is in case you missed it: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don't what you mean when you use the word "evidence", maybe you've watched too many police dramas or something? What I saw was a building dropping like a sack of bricks that was concluded to not have been brought down by an act of terrorism in a supposedly extensive report coupled with an admission by the lease holder that he recommended that the building be "pulled". |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123