Conspiracy theorists just question EVERYTHING - to the point where its not credible anymore.

The 9/11 theorie is very unlikely, like the "moon-landing is a hoax" theorie or the "snake headed aliens control the oil companies" one.

On the other hand, you are indeed an idiot if you still believe Harvey Oswald shot JFK, or the magic bulet theory. the tables are turned on that one.

What i'm saying is, it's not good to either believe the government OR conspiracy theories.
If you want to know "the truth" do some open-minded research yourself,
not gather someone elses subjective arguments.

At least its not as bad as the flat earth society.

They use physics to attempt to prove themselves right. Perversion of science is just wrong.
Oh yeah, we do have one American soldier per 500 m on some outer ice platform killing everyone who goes near it.
Ugh...

That is the absolute epitome of

I would rather listen to Christian conspiracies centered on the UN than that shit.

And BlindTortureKill, whilst I haven't done enough research to form a proper opinion on the JFK assassination, the general consensus among conspiracy theorists is that they assassinated JFK because he was planning to take money away from the gvt or something (has been a while since I have read it, sorry if I am wrong).

So, if they are prepared to kill the most popular and famous past President of America for monetary reasons, what's to stop them from creating a 'false alarm' attack for an excuse to invade the middle east?

I just found it strange that you believed the government would assassinate the most well loved and known head of the country who possibly stopped the Cold War from exploding into war (Cuban Missile Crisis), yet an event of which the government explanation is less plausible through various methods you don't believe they did. There is more reason to believe the WTC attacks were of government intention than it is to believe they shot JFK, magic bullet theory or not.

I guess there's always going to be speculation on the deaths of famous people. JFK conspiracies are about on the same level as Kurt Cobain conspiracies for me. Might be fun, but ultimately pointless

Conspiracy theories highlight to me that all organisations that exercise power (such as govt and the church) need a antagonist and victim to function and promote their ideals and rule.

The church has satan (praise Him) for example, western govts had the communists, the nazis had the Jews. Alot of govts have global warming as the bogey man these days.

In a vain attempt to make them seem important, the looneys have the conspiracy theories.

I heard of that reason.
But I've learned it's because he wanted to end the war in Vietnam by pulling back troops.
he gets shot, then the next president sends more troops to vietnam.

He also wanted to combat the mafia.
The mafia was involved too, because Oswald was shot by Ruby (a mobster) BEFORE he could go to court.
They might have had nothing on him, so they arrange he gets shot by a "fanatical Kennedy adorer" (a mobster - yea right)
They could have still done a parrafine test on his corpse to see if he fired a gun but that didn't happen strangely.

Then theres of course the fact Oswald would have had about a 10 minute
window for a perfect shot, yet had to wait until he was nearly out of sight and behind a tree.
Then they'd have us believe he shot him from him BEHIND, at which point Kennedy shocks BACKWARDS with blood shooting out his entrance wound (instead of the exit wound).
The entrance wound then would have to be bigger then the exit wound which is even more nonsensical.

In fact, I DON'T deem it impossible that 9/11 was a conspiracy.
Maybe the government "allowed" the attack but the rest is just guesswork.

well they let it happen in 1941

"They" let in happen in 1962, as well 2002.

'Operation Northwoods' anyone?

Wrong.

Maybe I should start a thread on threads that have gotten progressively better as they've gone on. There can't be many, these days.

I heard about that point as well, where the CIA were working with the mafia to assassinate JFK due to it serving both their interests. Admittedly the reports, photos etc of the assassination are a bit suspicious, but one does have to draw a line between what is plausible and what is bullshit.



Well it did serve the countries interest to let Pearl Harbour be attacked in '41; economy flourishes in times of war. Not to mention their buddies in Europe weren't doing too well at that point in time. Furthermore, while the leaders of the country may have agreed upon going to war, they needed to convince the people who were at that point against joining in that going to war was necessary. Hence the aircraft carriers were out of the way when the attack happened. It seems a plausible theory really, far from the 'SATAN IS CONTROLLING TEH UN' shit which is spewed out of paranoid Christian's mouths.

Maddox has some pretty funny articles about conspiracy theories (well all his articles are hilarious ...).

Check out http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07
and http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net ... 911_morons ...

My opinion is that their may be a tiny bit of truth in every conspiracy theory, yet each theory as a whole doesn't make sense and is complete bullshit. I'm pretty sure things could very well be more than just a theory, but the majority of them are based on nothing.

My thoughts exactly.

although the US Army Intelligence Division at the beginning of the 1900s was suspicious about the said Protocols their internal reports couldn't help but to notice the similarity between jewish group behavior and the document. Ref:

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/archi ... ersky.html


there's generally nothing wrong with Ron Paul. And compared to the rest of the Ds & Rs he's the best candidate for the Presidency. Hope he goes third party because it looks like the Republicunts are going to elect Mr.Amnesty-for-Illegals as their candidate. Paul would be the only conservative/patriot out of the three and assuming the elections are fair and not fixed by the voting machines he could get more votes than Perot did.


aren't boxes of JFK related documents sealed until 2060 or something ? The old saying about having nothing to hide fits the government much better than individuals



no they did: two interviews with pacific war veteran Robert Stinnett who did his own investigation (he almost says Roosevelt was right to sacrifice PH)

http://www.philipdru.com/audio/stinnett.mp3

http://www.hotpotatomedia.com/mpgs/080202rs.mp3

I read the first page of this article and it did little to sway my opinions. The writer had several very good points, although his use of rhetoric got annoying after awhile. My first contact with the Loose Change video has been this article, so I might go check it out to see what all the hype is about.

The notion that the buildings were brought down by a controlled demolition is silly, and has been thoroughly debunked. However, the big red flag would be the behavior of NORAD that day. They had been thoroughly prepared for such an event, and yet when it happened, their radar screens were saturated with blips due to conveniently timed war game exercises. The pilots were confused just long enough for the planes to reach their targets. As einvolk said, 9/11 was simply a repeat of Pearl Harbor, where the enemy had been harassed and goaded into attacking, and when they finally did, the warnings were silenced.

It's a lot like a kid provoking a bully, so he can use the excuse of "self-defense" when a fight breaks out. We create enemies as an excuse for imperialist mobilization.

Pearl Harbor wasn't 'harassing" and "goading" Japan into attacking. The Japanese had no hope of getting sufficient oil to sustain its attack on China at the time, because we had placed an oil embargo on them and the only sources of oil were European holdings in the East Indies--attacking these islands would probably provoke the United States into retailiating. The Japanese told us to leave them alone or else. We said no, so they launched a massive airborne attack on our fleet to cripple our naval forces in the Pacific to make a grab for the oil in the Pacific islands. Unfortunately for them, it was a losing proposition, because our industrial capacity was far greater than theirs and we rebuilt, regrouped, and were out for blood.

So you don't believe that they could've been having exercises on 9/11 and not known about the terrorist attack? That's not possible at all? Besides, even if they did get there in time, they couldn't just shoot the planes down. If the planes were already over a major city, shooting them down would have caused massive property damage and hundreds of casualties, and the airliners were full of fucking civilians. Do you think US warplanes would be willing to shoot down a plane full of Americans?

Al-Qaeda was not "goaded" into attacking the US, Al-Qaeda wants to destroy every civilization and belief system in the entire world except extreme Sunni Islam. They want us to CONVERT OR DIE. ALL OF US. The attack on the World Trade Center was an attack on unarmed civilians, an act of mass murder. There is no self defense in killing civilians en masse on purpose. It is murder. It is evil. It is a crime against humanity.

I am a Libertarian. And Alex Jones is a fucking asshat. I think most libertarians would agree.

Anyone stupid enough NOT to believe in conspiracy should watch this video series... No narration, no conjecture, just lots of footage and interviews that have been "swept under the rug" so to speak. In the second or third volumes they practically prove Oswald is not guilty by showing that only one fingerprint in the sniper's nest did not belong to an employee of the depository, that of a former CIA assassin.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1355447870

I think a lot of the 9/11 conspiracies are crazy, but I don't think anyone would deny that something is not right about the whole situation. There's got to be some reason the pentagon will not release any footage of the attack. Many things don't add up, lets just leave it at that.

99% of them are.

The only important one to focus on is the hits on the Towers and how all 3 buildings collapsed in the same manner.

The most I am willing to say at this point is that it is likely some people in the government (PNAC members) knew of the attack in advance and let it happen for obvious reasons, and that a controlled demolition of the Twin Towers would have been absolutely flat-out impossible to cover up both prior to the detonation and after the detonation. Seriously, it takes six months for a demolition team to set up a CT for a building half that size even with full 24-hour access, and people want me to believe the government went through the trouble of setting this up at night by secret teams for over a year and then covered all the evidence up every night so the day crews couldn't see? They have to knock out walls to properly place the explosives for Odin's sake, and nobody noticed? And then entire engineering community either hasn't picked up any evidence of this, or have been covering it up this whole time? There's like what, 100,000 people in the largest engineering organization in the U.S., the government paid them all to shut up? It'd be the largest government handout in history.


No, I don't buy it.

Impossible? Never.
Improbable? Yes. But too much of the official story is inconsistent.

Why were the lower parts of the massive supporting steel columns not left standing after the collapse? If the official story is true, that the damage was caused by the impacts and fires, which occurred only in the upper floors, and that the floors then pancaked, one would expect the massive steel columns in the central core, for, say, the lowest 20 or 30 floors, to have remained standing, which they did not. Have you seen the size of the support columns?

http://stj911.org/evidence/docs/site1099.jpg

They take up a large percentage of the overall square footage of each floor. Does it not seem odd that no remains of these support columns were left standing at the ground level?

Fires in the World Trade Center burned at temperatures as high as 1100oF. On September 16, 2001, data collected by AVIRIS revealed a number of thermal "hot spots" where the WTC buildings collapsed. Analysis of the data indicated some temperatures greater than 1300oF.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/index.html

A video of a firefighter describing seeing molten “steel” flowing at ground zero after 9/11 has emerged on Google video. He states that it was like a foundry or “lava in a volcano”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM

Seems improbable that fires alone caused temperatures below ground to remain above that of the fires five days after the event.

I feel that one of the biggest events to happen in US history deserves to have these questions answered.

What is the overall point of these things, it happened we dealt with it, it's done.

You're wrong. False-Flag operation or not, there is documented evidence that the government knew Japanese citizens were spying on our harbours, like how we "knew" of a foreboding attack on US soil months prior (July, I believe?). Letting it happen or doing it are two different things, I don't think einvolk is agreeing with the latter.

To the topic: Most debunking of conspiracy theories is usually aimed at extremely-far-out theories (i.e. mini nukes on the wtc, photon/particle beam use, the hollow-earth theory, reptilians, etc.). As far as 9/11 goes, I have yet to see a thorough debunking of the 9/11 CD/Partial CD theory. Ever see an illustration of the WTC Free-Fall collapse diagram? I'm not going to put blind faith into it, but buildings normally don't collapse into their own footprint because of flames or a hole caused by debris...unless of course this was an act of God (unlikely).

I've seen perversion of science from both sides, as well as blind zeal from both sides. One should not lump all "conspiracy theorists" together especially when they fall into the category of a hypocrite:



Not a personal attack to you BlindTortureKill, but it's not the first time I've seen such flip-flopping. I will say that most people will try to distance themselves from the label "conspiracy theorist" because of the more "out-there" theories. You should take everything anyone tells you with a grain of salt, but that's just common sense.

http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76763

What of 7?

Even if someone accepts all of NISTs claims about extensive structural damage and fires to WTC 7, its collapse scenario is not remotely plausible. The alleged damage was asymmetric, confined to the tower's south side, and any weakening of the steelwork from fire exposure would also be asymmetric. Even if the damage were sufficient to cause the whole building to collapse, it would have fallen over asymmetrically, toward the south. But WTC 7 fell straight down, into its footprint.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72BjFWIVgYc

flip flopping?
You think someone just talked me into that?

It's a little hobby of mine to do research into these things.
Now unless you've watched a ton of documentaries and articles (from both sides) about JFK like me, you shouldn't assume it's just as incredible as the other theories.

Let's face it, even if there are some holes in the 9/11 story, the conspiracy theory is still a load of bull and not comparable to JFK.
Oh and if believing a JFK theory makes me a conspiracy theorist, so be it.

The building had old furnaces which were close enough to each other for all of them to blow up from just one explosion. Even if the 17-foot-wide hole on the building's one side had only caused damage and fires close to one furnace, the whole thing would have gone as well.


The entire building 7 "red flag" has been thoroughly debunked at the JREF forum if you care to do a search for it. I've got better things to do.

To this I would like to add that the official findings of the House Select Committee on the Assassination of JFK concluded that "Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired" at JFK (refuting the Warren Report's Lone Gunmen theory) and that "The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy." So technically, an entire House committee was a "conspiracy theorist." Part of the U.S. government, in other words.

And that relates to the symmetric collapse how?




Ive looked for about half an hour and I so no evidence of anything being, "thoroughly debunked". I will keep digging but if you have direct links (besides this one: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101297) I would appreciate them.