So you are telling me that the government orchestrated an attack on our own soil, silenced the hundreds of people that would be involved, completely shifted the blame on Muslim terrorists? Yet they couldn't keep popular support for a war nor could they find a way profit at all from their own well orchestrated attacks, or is this part of the great conspiracy also?
9/11 conspiracy is real!
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]
[QUOTE="Brainkiller05"]There was nano-thermite found in the dust, guess you just ignore the proof you can't disprove right? Theokhoth
Yea. Somehow,....jet fuel, which burned off in the ensuing fireballs when the planes hit, was able to cut thru the stel like a hot knife through butter and was also able to keep the steel smoldering for about 6-8 weeks after the incident. Very peculiar for that to happen just from jet fuel.
Gee, it's not as though this has been covered already.
Answer: The amount of Thermite found was enough to burn a hole into the engine of a small car. In order to have any impact whatsoever on the Towers, the amount of Thermite (which, incidentally, does not explode) required would be about 60 tons. The stuff would have to be stored somewhere and used in the span of a few days without knocking down the Towers before the opportune moment; an impossibility.
In addition, to see how Thermite actually works, National Geographic published a documentary a couple of months back going over EVERY SINGLE conspiracy argument, with filmed tests to see if the claims of the conspirators could hold up. Among those tests was watching the effects of Thermite on metal beams identical to the ones that held up the twin towers.
Thermite didn't knock the towers down, thermite couldn't knock the towers down, please find something that hasn't been utterly disproven, thanks.
Thermite and dynamite could and most certainly did. I guess all the people that were in the lobby and lower levels were hallucinating or on some type of psychadelic to give reports in MASS about explosions goin off in the garages and the other lower basement levels.They too must beincompetent. I see ........
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="dark_orb"]
Do I believe that a plane actually hit the pentagon? No.
dark_orb
Would pictures of plane wreckage at the Pentagon convince you that a plane hit the Pentagon?
No I've seen those pictures before as well as pictures of the outside of the building and it does not look (to me) like a large passenger plane hit that building.
Funny. I saw a film of a plane going right into the Pentagon. i saw the nose, tail, and wings.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]
Yea. Somehow,....jet fuel, which burned off in the ensuing fireballs when the planes hit, was able to cut thru the stel like a hot knife through butter and was also able to keep the steel smoldering for about 6-8 weeks after the incident. Very peculiar for that to happen just from jet fuel.
_R34LiTY_
Gee, it's not as though this has been covered already.
Answer: The amount of Thermite found was enough to burn a hole into the engine of a small car. In order to have any impact whatsoever on the Towers, the amount of Thermite (which, incidentally, does not explode) required would be about 60 tons. The stuff would have to be stored somewhere and used in the span of a few days without knocking down the Towers before the opportune moment; an impossibility.
In addition, to see how Thermite actually works, National Geographic published a documentary a couple of months back going over EVERY SINGLE conspiracy argument, with filmed tests to see if the claims of the conspirators could hold up. Among those tests was watching the effects of Thermite on metal beams identical to the ones that held up the twin towers.
Thermite didn't knock the towers down, thermite couldn't knock the towers down, please find something that hasn't been utterly disproven, thanks.
Thermite and dynamite could and most certainly did. I guess all the people that were in the lobby and lower levels were hallucinating or on some type of psychadelic to give reports in MASS about explosions goin off in the garages and the other lower basement levels.They too must beincompetent. I see ........
As opposed to the many, many MORE people saying they heard nothing of the sort? You DO know there is such a thing as electrical explosions, right? And it's not as though the pancacke effect causes a little thing like massive air pressure. . .:lol:
But hey, I don't expect you to actually research.
[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]
[QUOTE="Brainkiller05"]There was nano-thermite found in the dust, guess you just ignore the proof you can't disprove right? Theokhoth
Yea. Somehow,....jet fuel, which burned off in the ensuing fireballs when the planes hit, was able to cut thru the stel like a hot knife through butter and was also able to keep the steel smoldering for about 6-8 weeks after the incident. Very peculiar for that to happen just from jet fuel.
Gee, it's not as though this has been covered already.
Answer: The amount of Thermite found was enough to burn a hole into the engine of a small car. In order to have any impact whatsoever on the Towers, the amount of Thermite (which, incidentally, does not explode) required would be about 60 tons. The stuff would have to be stored somewhere and used in the span of a few days without knocking down the Towers before the opportune moment; an impossibility.
In addition, to see how Thermite actually works, National Geographic published a documentary a couple of months back going over EVERY SINGLE conspiracy argument, with filmed tests to see if the claims of the conspirators could hold up. Among those tests was watching the effects of Thermite on metal beams identical to the ones that held up the twin towers.
Thermite didn't knock the towers down, thermite couldn't knock the towers down, please find something that hasn't been utterly disproven, thanks.
This is the one I watched and what I was thinking of when I mentioned passions and such. Atleast one or two of the theories they tested weren't to the letter. They had to say "Well....we can't do this exactly, so we're gonna do it similar but not the same...." I'm afraid "similar but not exactly how the theory proposed" is not good enough for me to consider proof one way or the other.
Several of the people doing the debunking expressed how they were outright offended that someone had a different view of 911, which is where bias comes in.
Again, I am not in favor of one way or the other, but I cannot accept something as proof if there is obvious bias in the people conducting the tests, or if the tests arn't testing exactly what the theory is.
So you are telling me that the government orchestrated an attack on our own soil, silenced the hundreds of people that would be involved, completely shifted the blame on Muslim terrorists? Yet they couldn't keep popular support for a war nor could they find a way profit at all from their own well orchestrated attacks, or is this part of the great conspiracy also?
SuperVegeta518
Defense contractors, on our American soil,certainly make money selling arms to both parties.It's no secret. Resources from this land or that land over there bring in more revenue as well. Changing the currency of oil transactions from Euros back to Dollars will ensure mass profit now that we dont have to buy Euros to get oil from the Middle East, in particular Iraq.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]
Yea. Somehow,....jet fuel, which burned off in the ensuing fireballs when the planes hit, was able to cut thru the stel like a hot knife through butter and was also able to keep the steel smoldering for about 6-8 weeks after the incident. Very peculiar for that to happen just from jet fuel.
Pixel-Pirate
Gee, it's not as though this has been covered already.
Answer: The amount of Thermite found was enough to burn a hole into the engine of a small car. In order to have any impact whatsoever on the Towers, the amount of Thermite (which, incidentally, does not explode) required would be about 60 tons. The stuff would have to be stored somewhere and used in the span of a few days without knocking down the Towers before the opportune moment; an impossibility.
In addition, to see how Thermite actually works, National Geographic published a documentary a couple of months back going over EVERY SINGLE conspiracy argument, with filmed tests to see if the claims of the conspirators could hold up. Among those tests was watching the effects of Thermite on metal beams identical to the ones that held up the twin towers.
Thermite didn't knock the towers down, thermite couldn't knock the towers down, please find something that hasn't been utterly disproven, thanks.
This is the one I watched and what I was thinking of when I mentioned passions and such. Atleast one or two of the theories they tested weren't to the letter. They had to say "Well....we can't do this exactly, so we're gonna do it similar but not the same...." I'm afraid "similar but not exactly how the theory proposed" is not good enough for me to consider proof one way or the other.
Several of the people doing the debunking expressed how they were outright offended that someone had a different view of 911, which is where bias comes in.
Again, I am not in favor of one way or the other, but I cannot accept something as proof if there is obvious bias in the people conducting the tests, or if the tests arn't testing exactly what the theory is.
Yes, because they had to do *some* of them under similar (not "exact") conditions, they therefore are biased, wrong, untrustworthy and unscientific. Nevermind that what you ask for is impossible, irrational and utterly ridiculous.
If you favor neither side then why are you here? If you favor neither side then why do you do nothing but defend the conspiracy theorists and their crazy claims?
[QUOTE="Brainkiller05"]
Gee, it's not as though this has been covered already.
Answer: The amount of Thermite found was enough to burn a hole into the engine of a small car. In order to have any impact whatsoever on the Towers, the amount of Thermite (which, incidentally, does not explode) required would be about 60 tons. The stuff would have to be stored somewhere and used in the span of a few days without knocking down the Towers before the opportune moment; an impossibility.
In addition, to see how Thermite actually works, National Geographic published a documentary a couple of months back going over EVERY SINGLE conspiracy argument, with filmed tests to see if the claims of the conspirators could hold up. Among those tests was watching the effects of Thermite on metal beams identical to the ones that held up the twin towers.
Thermite didn't knock the towers down, thermite couldn't knock the towers down, please find something that hasn't been utterly disproven, thanks.
_R34LiTY_
This is the one I watched and what I was thinking of when I mentioned passions and such. Atleast one or two of the theories they tested weren't to the letter. They had to say "Well....we can't do this exactly, so we're gonna do it similar but not the same...." I'm afraid "similar but not exactly how the theory proposed" is not good enough for me to consider proof one way or the other.
Several of the people doing the debunking expressed how they were outright offended that someone had a different view of 911, which is where bias comes in.
Again, I am not in favor of one way or the other, but I cannot accept something as proof if there is obvious bias in the people conducting the tests, or if the tests arn't testing exactly what the theory is.
Yes, because they had to do *some* of them under similar (not "exact") conditions, they therefore are biased, wrong, untrustworthy and unscientific. Nevermind that what you ask for is impossible, irrational and utterly ridiculous.
If you favor neither side then why are you here? If you favor neither side then why do you do nothing but defend the conspiracy theorists and their crazy claims?
I'm certainly annoyed. I'm annoyed by constant recitations of debunked old hat, along with making crap up and passing it off as truth.[QUOTE="dark_orb"]
[QUOTE="Pirate700"]Ah so you're an expert?
Pixel-Pirate
Nope, just a guy with an opinion. Probably just as well informed as you, I just dont' agree with you. Why you feel the need to convince me otherwise or attempt to berate me for having an opinion differing from yours I have no idea. This is why I usually stay away from religious topics and internet forums.
Basically what I've been stating all thread. This thread seems to go like this
Person 1: I believe in a conspiracy
Person 2: Heres a reason you should not
Person 1: That is not conclusive enough for me
Person 2: YOU ARE STUPIIIID! STUPID!
Stupid - Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.When someone denies blatantly obvious evidence that completely disproves these conspiracy theories just so they can go forward with their own agenda, then they can correctly be defined as stupid. Look I'm all for asking questions when things don't make sense, but I'm not for creating conspiracy theories that make far less sense than the original problem, and in the case of 9/11, things more or less make sense.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]
Yea. Somehow,....jet fuel, which burned off in the ensuing fireballs when the planes hit, was able to cut thru the stel like a hot knife through butter and was also able to keep the steel smoldering for about 6-8 weeks after the incident. Very peculiar for that to happen just from jet fuel.
_R34LiTY_
Gee, it's not as though this has been covered already.
Answer: The amount of Thermite found was enough to burn a hole into the engine of a small car. In order to have any impact whatsoever on the Towers, the amount of Thermite (which, incidentally, does not explode) required would be about 60 tons. The stuff would have to be stored somewhere and used in the span of a few days without knocking down the Towers before the opportune moment; an impossibility.
In addition, to see how Thermite actually works, National Geographic published a documentary a couple of months back going over EVERY SINGLE conspiracy argument, with filmed tests to see if the claims of the conspirators could hold up. Among those tests was watching the effects of Thermite on metal beams identical to the ones that held up the twin towers.
Thermite didn't knock the towers down, thermite couldn't knock the towers down, please find something that hasn't been utterly disproven, thanks.
Thermite and dynamite could and most certainly did. I guess all the people that were in the lobby and lower levels were hallucinating or on some type of psychadelic to give reports in MASS about explosions goin off in the garages and the other lower basement levels.They too must beincompetent. I see ........
Explosions in burning buildings aren't uncommon. As Theo mentioned, electrical equipment could have exploded. You want to talk about witnesses? Here's a little something - the members of the FDNY, who were there, and lost many of their men, do not endorse the conspiracy theories. At all. Many of them are rather angry about the Truth Movement.Also, when has thermite ever been used to bring down a building? Also, if there were explosives involved, why didn't anyone find them? No blasting caps, detonating wire, and the like? If there's a controlled demolition, there's that kind of evidence. Evidence that was conspicuously absent.
[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Gee, it's not as though this has been covered already.
Answer: The amount of Thermite found was enough to burn a hole into the engine of a small car. In order to have any impact whatsoever on the Towers, the amount of Thermite (which, incidentally, does not explode) required would be about 60 tons. The stuff would have to be stored somewhere and used in the span of a few days without knocking down the Towers before the opportune moment; an impossibility.
In addition, to see how Thermite actually works, National Geographic published a documentary a couple of months back going over EVERY SINGLE conspiracy argument, with filmed tests to see if the claims of the conspirators could hold up. Among those tests was watching the effects of Thermite on metal beams identical to the ones that held up the twin towers.
Thermite didn't knock the towers down, thermite couldn't knock the towers down, please find something that hasn't been utterly disproven, thanks.
Theokhoth
Thermite and dynamite could and most certainly did. I guess all the people that were in the lobby and lower levels were hallucinating or on some type of psychadelic to give reports in MASS about explosions goin off in the garages and the other lower basement levels.They too must beincompetent. I see ........
As opposed to the many, mnay MORE people saying they heard nothing of the sort? You DO know there is such a thing as electrical explosions, right? And it's not as though the pancacke effect causes alittle thing like massive air pressure. . .:lol:
But hey, I don't expect you to actually research.
Yea. You expect me to be like the rest of these mope followuing some other persons opinion they got from ome stupid video. right? That is what you expect. right? I mean afterall, the person with the unpopular opinion gets spoken to in a condescending manner. Right?There is no way that becausew is what it is, there is no way that Icouldve done REAL RESEARCH, and still come to that conclusion. Right?
Should I go ahead and say you a sheep for allowing the government to make you this righteous patriot of this country, like religion. But I won't. I'll simply say I see both sides of the spectrum and make my conclusions.
Yes. It can come off a bit offensive for a citizen of this nation or that one, to say that their govet was involved in yet another false flag operation. But then again we're talking about snake eaters here. People who would slice a mans throat to see him in anguish with much apathy, and it certainly isn't Arab Muslims.
But somehow, I'm the misguided one. I see now.....
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Gee, it's not as though this has been covered already.
Answer: The amount of Thermite found was enough to burn a hole into the engine of a small car. In order to have any impact whatsoever on the Towers, the amount of Thermite (which, incidentally, does not explode) required would be about 60 tons. The stuff would have to be stored somewhere and used in the span of a few days without knocking down the Towers before the opportune moment; an impossibility.
In addition, to see how Thermite actually works, National Geographic published a documentary a couple of months back going over EVERY SINGLE conspiracy argument, with filmed tests to see if the claims of the conspirators could hold up. Among those tests was watching the effects of Thermite on metal beams identical to the ones that held up the twin towers.
Thermite didn't knock the towers down, thermite couldn't knock the towers down, please find something that hasn't been utterly disproven, thanks.
Theokhoth
This is the one I watched and what I was thinking of when I mentioned passions and such. Atleast one or two of the theories they tested weren't to the letter. They had to say "Well....we can't do this exactly, so we're gonna do it similar but not the same...." I'm afraid "similar but not exactly how the theory proposed" is not good enough for me to consider proof one way or the other.
Several of the people doing the debunking expressed how they were outright offended that someone had a different view of 911, which is where bias comes in.
Again, I am not in favor of one way or the other, but I cannot accept something as proof if there is obvious bias in the people conducting the tests, or if the tests arn't testing exactly what the theory is.
Yes, because they had to do *some* of them under similar (not "exact") conditions, they therefore are biased, wrong, untrustworthy and unscientific. Nevermind that what you ask for is impossible, irrational and utterly ridiculous.
If you favor neither side then why are you here? If you favor neither side then why do you do nothing but defend the conspiracy theorists and their crazy claims?
And if they can't do it exactly, I'm afraid that isn't conclusive evidence for me and, I don't think would hold up in a court. You can't have one theory and then do something different and say it counts even though it isn't the same.
And I'm here because I don't think it's right to go after people with the crusader-like passion. I'm kinda wondering WHY this is such a big issue for you. You seem quite angry at the idea of people believing in a conspiracy.
I defend them because I don't feel it's that crazy, and I feel they're being more rational in this topic. Most of the conspiracy theorists here are basically saying "It COULD of happened." and alot of the anti-conspiracy theorists are foaming at the mouth going "NOOOO! YOU ARE AN IDIOT! GRAAAAH I HATE YOOOOU!"
So yeah, one side seems more calm to me.
Yea. You expect me to be like the rest of these mope followuing some other persons opinion they got from ome stupid video. right? That is what you expect. right?
Well, you're already doing it with this thermite crap. Thermite can't knock down a building, period, even with dynamite.
I mean afterall, the person with the unpopular opinion gets spoken to in a condescending manner. Right?
This isn't an opinion. You're making statements regarding reality, FALSE statements.
There is no way that becausew is what it is, there is no way that Icouldve done REAL RESEARCH, and still come to that conclusion. Right?
Correct. If you had done real research, you would not have reached the conclusion that thermite can knock down a building. Because it is common knowledge that it can't.
Should I go ahead and say you a sheep for allowing the government to make you this righteous patriot of this country, like religion. But I won't. I'll simply say I see both sides of the spectrum and make my conclusions.
Yes. It can come off a bit offensive for a citizen of this nation or that one, to say that their govet was involved in yet another false flag operation. But then again we're talking about snake eaters here. People who would slice a mans throat to see him in anguish with much apathy, and it certainly isn't Arab Muslims.
But somehow, I'm the misguided one. I see now.....
_R34LiTY_
Yes, you are the misguided one, for assuming that just because America's done bad stuff it therefore caused 9/11. Yes, you are misguided, no, you did not do real research, and yes, you do follow the unpopular opinion simply because it's the unpopular opinion, making you, not me, the sheep.
So what about the conspiracy theory do you find reasonable? Bear in mind that science has debunked their theories. Also bear in mind they admitted to making things up. So what do you believe and why?And if they can't do it exactly, I'm afraid that isn't conclusive evidence for me and, I don't think would hold up in a court. You can't have one theory and then do something different and say it counts even though it isn't the same.
And I'm here because I don't think it's right to go after people with the crusader-like passion. I'm kinda wondering WHY this is such a big issue for you. You seem quite angry at the idea of people believing in a conspiracy.
I defend them because I don't feel it's that crazy, and I feel they're being more rational in this topic. Most of the conspiracy theorists here are basically saying "It COULD of happened." and alot of the anti-conspiracy theorists are foaming at the mouth going "NOOOO! YOU ARE AN IDIOT! GRAAAAH I HATE YOOOOU!"
So yeah, one side seems more calm to me.
Pixel-Pirate
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
This is the one I watched and what I was thinking of when I mentioned passions and such. Atleast one or two of the theories they tested weren't to the letter. They had to say "Well....we can't do this exactly, so we're gonna do it similar but not the same...." I'm afraid "similar but not exactly how the theory proposed" is not good enough for me to consider proof one way or the other.
Several of the people doing the debunking expressed how they were outright offended that someone had a different view of 911, which is where bias comes in.
Again, I am not in favor of one way or the other, but I cannot accept something as proof if there is obvious bias in the people conducting the tests, or if the tests arn't testing exactly what the theory is.
Pixel-Pirate
Yes, because they had to do *some* of them under similar (not "exact") conditions, they therefore are biased, wrong, untrustworthy and unscientific. Nevermind that what you ask for is impossible, irrational and utterly ridiculous.
If you favor neither side then why are you here? If you favor neither side then why do you do nothing but defend the conspiracy theorists and their crazy claims?
And if they can't do it exactly, I'm afraid that isn't conclusive evidence for me and, I don't think would hold up in a court. You can't have one theory and then do something different and say it counts even though it isn't the same.
They recreate the conditions. That's called a science experiment.
And I'm here because I don't think it's right to go after people with the crusader-like passion. I'm kinda wondering WHY this is such a big issue for you. You seem quite angry at the idea of people believing in a conspiracy.
Because the conspiracy is ridiculous and has been utterly disproven repeatedly throughout the past nine years.
I defend them because I don't feel it's that crazy, and I feel they're being more rational in this topic. Most of the conspiracy theorists here are basically saying "It COULD of happened." and alot of the anti-conspiracy theorists are foaming at the mouth going "NOOOO! YOU ARE AN IDIOT! GRAAAAH I HATE YOOOOU!"
So yeah, one side seems more calm to me.
They're saying "it COULD have happened" even though it's been demonstrated that it has not. People who know this are fed up with the same spiel over and over again. Exactly how you don't see the problem here eludes me.
So what about the conspiracy theory do you find reasonable? Bear in mind that science has debunked their theories. Also bear in mind they admitted to making things up. So what do you believe and why?[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
And if they can't do it exactly, I'm afraid that isn't conclusive evidence for me and, I don't think would hold up in a court. You can't have one theory and then do something different and say it counts even though it isn't the same.
And I'm here because I don't think it's right to go after people with the crusader-like passion. I'm kinda wondering WHY this is such a big issue for you. You seem quite angry at the idea of people believing in a conspiracy.
I defend them because I don't feel it's that crazy, and I feel they're being more rational in this topic. Most of the conspiracy theorists here are basically saying "It COULD of happened." and alot of the anti-conspiracy theorists are foaming at the mouth going "NOOOO! YOU ARE AN IDIOT! GRAAAAH I HATE YOOOOU!"
So yeah, one side seems more calm to me.
LJS9502_basic
I don't believe any of it, nor do I believe the offical story, because I was not there. I can only believe with 100% fact what I can see with my own eyes at the time it happens.
Someone saying they made it up is....well...silly? That would be like a catholic priest coming out and saying the entire religion is made up. Would all catholics believe him suddenly? Probably not.
I already went over that they since they were unable to do things eactly, I cannot accept some of the debunkings.
What do I find believable? Well it's all theoretically possible. Bombs can blow up buildings, people can do things without others knowing. Nothing in it is super natural.
Did the government do it? I don't know, I wasn't there nor am I a very high ranking government offical, so I cannot tell you as I do not know. No one here knows for sure. They only have their belief. And one persons belief is no better than the next persons.
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Yes, because they had to do *some* of them under similar (not "exact") conditions, they therefore are biased, wrong, untrustworthy and unscientific. Nevermind that what you ask for is impossible, irrational and utterly ridiculous.
If you favor neither side then why are you here? If you favor neither side then why do you do nothing but defend the conspiracy theorists and their crazy claims?
Theokhoth
And if they can't do it exactly, I'm afraid that isn't conclusive evidence for me and, I don't think would hold up in a court. You can't have one theory and then do something different and say it counts even though it isn't the same.
They recreate the conditions. That's called a science experiment.
And I'm here because I don't think it's right to go after people with the crusader-like passion. I'm kinda wondering WHY this is such a big issue for you. You seem quite angry at the idea of people believing in a conspiracy.
Because the conspiracy is ridiculous and has been utterly disproven repeatedly throughout the past nine years.
I defend them because I don't feel it's that crazy, and I feel they're being more rational in this topic. Most of the conspiracy theorists here are basically saying "It COULD of happened." and alot of the anti-conspiracy theorists are foaming at the mouth going "NOOOO! YOU ARE AN IDIOT! GRAAAAH I HATE YOOOOU!"
So yeah, one side seems more calm to me.
They're saying "it COULD have happened" even though it's been demonstrated that it has not. People who know this are fed up with the same spiel over and over again. Exactly how you don't see the problem here eludes me.
And there are atheists who believe God is basically impossible and are fed up with others saying God is real. But they don't get to demand everyone stop believing in God because they're sick of debating it. If you don't want to argue it, then don't. You have no responsibility to do so.
Like I said, one persons opinion is no better than anothers to me.
Experts examined the wreckage. There were witnesses to all three planes hitting the buildings. I find it strange to say the least to negate all those statements....which you are doing.....and say maybe something else happened.I don't believe any of it, nor do I believe the offical story, because I was not there. I can only believe with 100% fact what I can see with my own eyes at the time it happens.
Someone saying they made it up is....well...silly? That would be like a catholic priest coming out and saying the entire religion is made up. Would all catholics believe him suddenly? Probably not.
I already went over that they since they were unable to do things eactly, I cannot accept some of the debunkings.
What do I find believable? Well it's all theoretically possible. Bombs can blow up buildings, people can do things without others knowing. Nothing in it is super natural.
Did the government do it? I don't know, I wasn't there nor am I a very high ranking government offical, so I cannot tell you as I do not know. No one here knows for sure. They only have their belief. And one persons belief is no better than the next persons.
Pixel-Pirate
They stated they made it up. Make what you want of that but stop comparing conspiracy theories to religion. K?
Bombs can't blow up buildings and then have the remains of the bombs disappear magically.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
And if they can't do it exactly, I'm afraid that isn't conclusive evidence for me and, I don't think would hold up in a court. You can't have one theory and then do something different and say it counts even though it isn't the same.
They recreate the conditions. That's called a science experiment.
And I'm here because I don't think it's right to go after people with the crusader-like passion. I'm kinda wondering WHY this is such a big issue for you. You seem quite angry at the idea of people believing in a conspiracy.
Because the conspiracy is ridiculous and has been utterly disproven repeatedly throughout the past nine years.
I defend them because I don't feel it's that crazy, and I feel they're being more rational in this topic. Most of the conspiracy theorists here are basically saying "It COULD of happened." and alot of the anti-conspiracy theorists are foaming at the mouth going "NOOOO! YOU ARE AN IDIOT! GRAAAAH I HATE YOOOOU!"
So yeah, one side seems more calm to me.
Pixel-Pirate
They're saying "it COULD have happened" even though it's been demonstrated that it has not. People who know this are fed up with the same spiel over and over again. Exactly how you don't see the problem here eludes me.
And there are atheists who believe God is basically impossible and are fed up with others saying God is real. But they don't get to demand everyone stop believing in God because they're sick of debating it. If you don't want to argue it, then don't. You have no responsibility to do so.
Like I said, one persons opinion is no better than anothers to me.
You keep saying "opinion" as though that's what this is.
If I say the sky is blue, that isn't an opinion. That's a statement regarding reality, and it's correct. If somebody says no, it's red, they are wrong. If they continue to say it is red for nine years, they are both wrong and stupid.
[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]
Yea. You expect me to be like the rest of these mope followuing some other persons opinion they got from ome stupid video. right? That is what you expect. right?
I mean afterall, the person with the unpopular opinion gets spoken to in a condescending manner. Right?There is no way that becausew is what it is, there is no way that Icouldve done REAL RESEARCH, and still come to that conclusion. Right?
Should I go ahead and say you a sheep for allowing the government to make you this righteous patriot of this country, like religion. But I won't. I'll simply say I see both sides of the spectrum and make my conclusions.
Yes. It can come off a bit offensive for a citizen of this nation or that one, to say that their govet was involved in yet another false flag operation. But then again we're talking about snake eaters here. People who would slice a mans throat to see him in anguish with much apathy, and it certainly isn't Arab Muslims.
But somehow, I'm the misguided one. I see now.....
Theokhoth
Well, you're already doing it with this thermite crap. Thermite can't knock down a building, period, even with dynamite.
This isn't an opinion. You're making statements regarding reality, FALSE statements.
Correct. If you had done real research, you would not have reached the conclusion that thermite can knock down a building. Because it is common knowledge that it can't.
Yes, you are the misguided one, for assuming that just because America's done bad stuff it therefore caused 9/11. Yes, you are misguided, no, you did not do real research, and yes, you do follow the unpopular opinion simply because it's the unpopular opinion, making you, not me, the sheep.
Maybe I shouldnt've said THERMITE & CHARGES brought the buildings down, because I'm still looking into that myself. But it certainly is more probable than jet fuel doing the job. That fuel fire alonehad traveled down the elevator shaft and melted everything in sight, or made it's structure way to weak for the support columns to continue, supporting, is absurd.
What is reality if we can't get to the bottom of it? Like JFK, the people who do know will go to their deathbeds with the real reasons why the world is the way it is, and why we are the way we are when events that shake the world occurr. I'm stating the information I come across which is more conclusive than us being caught off guard, yet again.
The worlds 'best defense' is on our soil, but we have a good track record of continuosly being outsmarted/caught of guard by people in caves. Not to mention London, India and whatever other nation that has had their own '9/11' like catastrophe are all outsmarted by these same folks.
Right.....
Don't believe everything you see on the internet.
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
They're saying "it COULD have happened" even though it's been demonstrated that it has not. People who know this are fed up with the same spiel over and over again. Exactly how you don't see the problem here eludes me.
Theokhoth
And there are atheists who believe God is basically impossible and are fed up with others saying God is real. But they don't get to demand everyone stop believing in God because they're sick of debating it. If you don't want to argue it, then don't. You have no responsibility to do so.
Like I said, one persons opinion is no better than anothers to me.
You keep saying "opinion" as though that's what this is.
If I say the sky is blue, that isn't an opinion. That's a statement regarding reality, and it's correct. If somebody says no, it's red, they are wrong. If they continue to say it is red for nine years, they are both wrong and stupid.
Except we can see the sky. I cannot see everything that happened on 9/11.
If you wish to know why I'm basically on their side right now, it's because the conspiracy theorists in this thread are being more respectful. They are giving their reasons and thats it. You are essentially quoting each of them and saying "YOU'RE AN IDIOT" which tends to throw out abit of credibility when you cannot be respectful to someone elses opinion (and as much as you may wish to demonize it and say it isn't an opinion, it is.) so, I'm basically seeing one side that, while not agreeing with the offical statement, is respectful, and another side thats basically screaming at everyone who does not agree with them.
It's actually a rather important thing in arguing. If you arn't respectful, people are less likely to take you seriously or pay attention to what you say.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]
Yea. You expect me to be like the rest of these mope followuing some other persons opinion they got from ome stupid video. right? That is what you expect. right?
I mean afterall, the person with the unpopular opinion gets spoken to in a condescending manner. Right?There is no way that becausew is what it is, there is no way that Icouldve done REAL RESEARCH, and still come to that conclusion. Right?
Should I go ahead and say you a sheep for allowing the government to make you this righteous patriot of this country, like religion. But I won't. I'll simply say I see both sides of the spectrum and make my conclusions.
Yes. It can come off a bit offensive for a citizen of this nation or that one, to say that their govet was involved in yet another false flag operation. But then again we're talking about snake eaters here. People who would slice a mans throat to see him in anguish with much apathy, and it certainly isn't Arab Muslims.
But somehow, I'm the misguided one. I see now.....
_R34LiTY_
Well, you're already doing it with this thermite crap. Thermite can't knock down a building, period, even with dynamite.
This isn't an opinion. You're making statements regarding reality, FALSE statements.
Correct. If you had done real research, you would not have reached the conclusion that thermite can knock down a building. Because it is common knowledge that it can't.
Yes, you are the misguided one, for assuming that just because America's done bad stuff it therefore caused 9/11. Yes, you are misguided, no, you did not do real research, and yes, you do follow the unpopular opinion simply because it's the unpopular opinion, making you, not me, the sheep.
Maybe I shouldnt've said THERMITE & CHARGES brought the buildings down, because I'm still looking into that myself. But it certainly is more probable than jet fuel doing the job. That fuel fire alonehad traveled down the elevator shaft and melted everything in sight, or made it's structure way to weak for the support columns to continue, supporting, is absurd.
Heat makes metal weaken and expand. Weak metal cannot hold up a huge-ass building. What's absurd about it?
What is reality if we can't get to the bottom of it? Like JFK, the people who do know will go to their deathbeds with the real reasons why the world is the way it is, and why we are the way we are when events that shake the world occurr. I'm stating the information I come across which is more conclusive than us being caught off guard, yet again.
The worlds 'best defense' is on our soil, but we have a good track record of continuosly being outsmarted/caught of guard by people in caves.
People in caves with access to a lot of funding and equipment, with a ton of determination, a grudge as big as the Wall of China and, as you yourself have mentioned, experience withour government.
Not to mention London, India and whatever other nation that has had their own '9/11' like catastrophe are all outsmarted by these same folks.
Right.....
Yes. It's not that hard to comprehend.
Experts examined the wreckage. There were witnesses to all three planes hitting the buildings. I find it strange to say the least to negate all those statements....which you are doing.....and say maybe something else happened.[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
I don't believe any of it, nor do I believe the offical story, because I was not there. I can only believe with 100% fact what I can see with my own eyes at the time it happens.
Someone saying they made it up is....well...silly? That would be like a catholic priest coming out and saying the entire religion is made up. Would all catholics believe him suddenly? Probably not.
I already went over that they since they were unable to do things eactly, I cannot accept some of the debunkings.
What do I find believable? Well it's all theoretically possible. Bombs can blow up buildings, people can do things without others knowing. Nothing in it is super natural.
Did the government do it? I don't know, I wasn't there nor am I a very high ranking government offical, so I cannot tell you as I do not know. No one here knows for sure. They only have their belief. And one persons belief is no better than the next persons.
LJS9502_basic
They stated they made it up. Make what you want of that but stop comparing conspiracy theories to religion. K?
Bombs can't blow up buildings and then have the remains of the bombs disappear magically.
Why can't I compare religion and conspiracy theories? They're fairly similar. They are both believing in something somewhat fantastical without proof of it.
No. You are just picking and choosing which witnesses to believe. Or none at all. But to refer back to your earlier post.....isn't slamming religion a contradiction to your opinion stance?Why can't I compare religion and conspiracy theories? They're fairly similar. They are both believing in something somewhat fantastical without proof of it.
Pixel-Pirate
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
And there are atheists who believe God is basically impossible and are fed up with others saying God is real. But they don't get to demand everyone stop believing in God because they're sick of debating it. If you don't want to argue it, then don't. You have no responsibility to do so.
Like I said, one persons opinion is no better than anothers to me.
Pixel-Pirate
You keep saying "opinion" as though that's what this is.
If I say the sky is blue, that isn't an opinion. That's a statement regarding reality, and it's correct. If somebody says no, it's red, they are wrong. If they continue to say it is red for nine years, they are both wrong and stupid.
Except we can see the sky. I cannot see everything that happened on 9/11.
If you wish to know why I'm basically on their side right now, it's because the conspiracy theorists in this thread are being more respectful. They are giving their reasons and thats it. You are essentially quoting each of them and saying "YOU'RE AN IDIOT" which tends to throw out abit of credibility when you cannot be respectful to someone elses opinion (and as much as you may wish to demonize it and say it isn't an opinion, it is.) so, I'm basically seeing one side that, while not agreeing with the offical statement, is respectful, and another side thats basically screaming at everyone who does not agree with them.
It's actually a rather important thing in arguing. If you arn't respectful, people are less likely to take you seriously or pay attention to what you say.
Did you not happen to see my first post in this thread, where I lined up everything I've gathered on this subject so far? Respect is good; actually having facts is not. You want disrespect? Ignoring facts and propagating lies is hardly respect.
No. You are just picking and choosing which witnesses to believe. Or none at all. But to refer back to your earlier post.....isn't slamming religion a contradiction to your opinion stance?[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
Why can't I compare religion and conspiracy theories? They're fairly similar. They are both believing in something somewhat fantastical without proof of it.
LJS9502_basic
How is it slamming? I never said religion was stupid, I'm saying they're similar to conspiracy theories.
And again, I don't believe either of them.
You haven't read The Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics have you? It is in your best interest to keep your detractors around and to make them look foolish. You make them look so irrational that the entire issue becomes entangled in their own irrationality. When someone thinks of 9/11, they think of the conspiracy theories and the crazies behind them.If the government did 9/11, then the government has no hesitation to killing its own citizens, correct? If this is true, why hasn't the government started to kill everyone who preaches the "truth" about the events of 9/11?
RadBooley
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
You keep saying "opinion" as though that's what this is.
If I say the sky is blue, that isn't an opinion. That's a statement regarding reality, and it's correct. If somebody says no, it's red, they are wrong. If they continue to say it is red for nine years, they are both wrong and stupid.
Theokhoth
Except we can see the sky. I cannot see everything that happened on 9/11.
If you wish to know why I'm basically on their side right now, it's because the conspiracy theorists in this thread are being more respectful. They are giving their reasons and thats it. You are essentially quoting each of them and saying "YOU'RE AN IDIOT" which tends to throw out abit of credibility when you cannot be respectful to someone elses opinion (and as much as you may wish to demonize it and say it isn't an opinion, it is.) so, I'm basically seeing one side that, while not agreeing with the offical statement, is respectful, and another side thats basically screaming at everyone who does not agree with them.
It's actually a rather important thing in arguing. If you arn't respectful, people are less likely to take you seriously or pay attention to what you say.
Did you not happen to see my first post in this thread, where I lined up everything I've gathered on this subject so far? Respect is good; actually having facts is not. You want disrespect? Ignoring facts and propagating lies is hardly respect.
The problem here is the first post you even made was basically insulting anyone who disagrees. I understand your passion in the subject, but being mutally respectful goes a long way.
Conspiracy theories avoid facts. Because the facts prove them wrong. So they make up motives or outright lie.How is it slamming? I never said religion was stupid, I'm saying they're similar to conspiracy theories.
And again, I don't believe either of them.
Pixel-Pirate
nvm. Couldn't think of anything better,
[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Well, you're already doing it with this thermite crap. Thermite can't knock down a building, period, even with dynamite.
This isn't an opinion. You're making statements regarding reality, FALSE statements.
Correct. If you had done real research, you would not have reached the conclusion that thermite can knock down a building. Because it is common knowledge that it can't.
Yes, you are the misguided one, for assuming that just because America's done bad stuff it therefore caused 9/11. Yes, you are misguided, no, you did not do real research, and yes, you do follow the unpopular opinion simply because it's the unpopular opinion, making you, not me, the sheep.
Theokhoth
Maybe I shouldnt've said THERMITE & CHARGES brought the buildings down, because I'm still looking into that myself. But it certainly is more probable than jet fuel doing the job. That fuel fire alonehad traveled down the elevator shaft and melted everything in sight, or made it's structure way to weak for the support columns to continue, supporting, is absurd.
What is reality if we can't get to the bottom of it? Like JFK, the people who do know will go to their deathbeds with the real reasons why the world is the way it is, and why we are the way we are when events that shake the world occurr. I'm stating the information I come across which is more conclusive than us being caught off guard, yet again.
The worlds 'best defense' is on our soil, but we have a good track record of continuosly being outsmarted/caught of guard by people in caves.Not to mention London, India and whatever other nation that has had their own '9/11' like catastrophe are all outsmarted by these same folks.
Right.....
Heat makes metal weaken and expand. Weak metal cannot hold up a huge-ass building. What's absurd about it?
People in caves with access to a lot of funding and equipment, with a ton of determination, a grudge as big as the Wall of China and, as you yourself have mentioned, experience withour government.
Yes. It's not that hard to comprehend.
I know it's not hard to comprehend. Finding truth in it isanother story. I know what heat does to metal, but fuel, and jet fuel at that,can only burn up to a certain temperature, and couldt've done the damge to the steel like we're being expected to believe it did.In any event, who do you think funded Al Qaeda? it certainly was the Saudis or Pakistanis. Yea Bin Laden is royalty and his family has biggest construction contracting company in Middle East, but stillnot enoughfundsfor this kind of campaign on the Free World?
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]
Maybe I shouldnt've said THERMITE & CHARGES brought the buildings down, because I'm still looking into that myself. But it certainly is more probable than jet fuel doing the job. That fuel fire alonehad traveled down the elevator shaft and melted everything in sight, or made it's structure way to weak for the support columns to continue, supporting, is absurd.
What is reality if we can't get to the bottom of it? Like JFK, the people who do know will go to their deathbeds with the real reasons why the world is the way it is, and why we are the way we are when events that shake the world occurr. I'm stating the information I come across which is more conclusive than us being caught off guard, yet again.
The worlds 'best defense' is on our soil, but we have a good track record of continuosly being outsmarted/caught of guard by people in caves.Not to mention London, India and whatever other nation that has had their own '9/11' like catastrophe are all outsmarted by these same folks.
Right.....
_R34LiTY_
Heat makes metal weaken and expand. Weak metal cannot hold up a huge-ass building. What's absurd about it?
People in caves with access to a lot of funding and equipment, with a ton of determination, a grudge as big as the Wall of China and, as you yourself have mentioned, experience withour government.
Yes. It's not that hard to comprehend.
I know it's not hard to comprehend. Finding truth in it isanother story. I know what heat does to metal, but fuel, and jet fuel at that,can only burn up to a certain temperature, and couldt've done the damge to the steel like we're being expected to believe it did.
It can and it has been demonstrated to do so. In the NatGeo documentary they had several metal beams identical to the ones in the twin towers burn with jet fuel; they didn't break, but they did bend and warp to a point where they couldn't possibly hold up a building. It was filmed.
In any event, who do you think funded Al Qaeda? it certainly was the Saudis or Pakistanis. Yea Bin Laden is royalty and his family has biggest construction contracting company in Middle East, but stillnot enoughfundsfor this kind of campaign on the Free World?
I've already posted who funded Al Qaeda: they are funded mostly by independent donors and charities, and Bin Laden received one million dollars a year from his family until 1994; the cost of the attacks was only half a million dollars on their part.
The people who believe in the conspiracy theory believe they have actual proof. But they don't.Is it just speculation or is there actual proof?
WiiMan21
Changing the currency of oil transactions from Euros back to Dollars will ensure mass profit now that we dont have to buy Euros to get oil from the Middle East, in particular Iraq.
_R34LiTY_
The Associated Press (liberal btw) takes great pains to print in every article about crude oil prices, that worldwide in every bourse, oil futures contracts are bought and sold in U.S. Dollars only. Always has been. This is why oil prices drop when the dollar gets stronger. Investors buy the dollar, oil starts dropping, investors dump their holdings in oil.
[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Heat makes metal weaken and expand. Weak metal cannot hold up a huge-ass building. What's absurd about it?
People in caves with access to a lot of funding and equipment, with a ton of determination, a grudge as big as the Wall of China and, as you yourself have mentioned, experience withour government.
Yes. It's not that hard to comprehend.
Theokhoth
I know it's not hard to comprehend. Finding truth in it isanother story. I know what heat does to metal, but fuel, and jet fuel at that,can only burn up to a certain temperature, and couldt've done the damge to the steel like we're being expected to believe it did.
It can and it has been demonstrated to do so. In the NatGeo documentary they had several metal beams identical to the ones in the twin towers burn with jet fuel; they didn't break, but they did bend and warp to a point where they couldn't possibly hold up a building. It was filmed.
In any event, who do you think funded Al Qaeda? it certainly was the Saudis or Pakistanis. Yea Bin Laden is royalty and his family has biggest construction contracting company in Middle East, but stillnot enoughfundsfor this kind of campaign on the Free World?
I've already posted who funded Al Qaeda: they are funded mostly by independent donors and charities, and Bin Laden received one million dollars a year from his family until 1994; the cost of the attacks was only half a million dollars on their part.
So then, I suppose that the CIA was not involved increating, training and fundingAl Qaeda to fight our dirty war against the Soviets back in the early 80s? Or is that another pile of bollocks?
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]
I know it's not hard to comprehend. Finding truth in it isanother story. I know what heat does to metal, but fuel, and jet fuel at that,can only burn up to a certain temperature, and couldt've done the damge to the steel like we're being expected to believe it did.
It can and it has been demonstrated to do so. In the NatGeo documentary they had several metal beams identical to the ones in the twin towers burn with jet fuel; they didn't break, but they did bend and warp to a point where they couldn't possibly hold up a building. It was filmed.
In any event, who do you think funded Al Qaeda? it certainly was the Saudis or Pakistanis. Yea Bin Laden is royalty and his family has biggest construction contracting company in Middle East, but stillnot enoughfundsfor this kind of campaign on the Free World?
_R34LiTY_
I've already posted who funded Al Qaeda: they are funded mostly by independent donors and charities, and Bin Laden received one million dollars a year from his family until 1994; the cost of the attacks was only half a million dollars on their part.
So then, I suppose that the CIA was not involved increating, training and fundingAl Qaeda to fight our dirty war against the Soviets back in the early 80s? Or is that another pile of bollocks?
Sure, but I don't really see how that's relevant here. Al Qaeda kinda went rogue between the 80s and 2001, and the Cold War ended ten years prior. The US hasn't been friends with Al Qaeda in years.
[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
I've already posted who funded Al Qaeda: they are funded mostly by independent donors and charities, and Bin Laden received one million dollars a year from his family until 1994; the cost of the attacks was only half a million dollars on their part.
Theokhoth
So then, I suppose that the CIA was not involved increating, training and fundingAl Qaeda to fight our dirty war against the Soviets back in the early 80s? Or is that another pile of bollocks?
Sure, but I don't really see how that's relevant here. Al Qaeda kinda went rogue between the 80s and 2001, and the Cold War ended ten years prior. The US hasn't been friends with Al Qaeda in years.
Maybe hindsight is just 20/20?[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]
Changing the currency of oil transactions from Euros back to Dollars will ensure mass profit now that we dont have to buy Euros to get oil from the Middle East, in particular Iraq.
topsemag55
The Associated Press (liberal btw) takes great pains to print in every article about crude oil prices, that worldwide in every bourse, oil futures contracts are bought and sold in U.S. Dollars only. Always has been. This is why oil prices drop when the dollar gets stronger. Investors buy the dollar, oil starts dropping, investors dump their holdings in oil.
I'll have to go look on the web to see if I can bring up Saddam going for a PetroEuro rather than continuingthe PetroDollar. I would assume that if so, this might've been is way of hurtingUS 'interest'since our military leaders wouldnt get off his soil.
[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
I've already posted who funded Al Qaeda: they are funded mostly by independent donors and charities, and Bin Laden received one million dollars a year from his family until 1994; the cost of the attacks was only half a million dollars on their part.
Theokhoth
So then, I suppose that the CIA was not involved increating, training and fundingAl Qaeda to fight our dirty war against the Soviets back in the early 80s? Or is that another pile of bollocks?
Sure, but I don't really see how that's relevant here. Al Qaeda kinda went rogue between the 80s and 2001, and the Cold War ended ten years prior. The US hasn't been friends with Al Qaeda in years.
Friends? lol no. They went from business partners to being used as the phantom menace that turned this world upside down on 9/11. Like with Saddam,we give him weapons and such to continue his campaign, and then we go to war him saying that he has chemical gas with which tikill the Kurds and Kuwaties etc. It's no surprise really that Jr finally finished the job after the PetroEuro fiaso. then again ikt shouldnt be a surprise becauseAmerica has this reputation for 'Use & Abuse'.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]
So then, I suppose that the CIA was not involved increating, training and fundingAl Qaeda to fight our dirty war against the Soviets back in the early 80s? Or is that another pile of bollocks?
_R34LiTY_
Sure, but I don't really see how that's relevant here. Al Qaeda kinda went rogue between the 80s and 2001, and the Cold War ended ten years prior. The US hasn't been friends with Al Qaeda in years.
Friends? lol no. They went from business partners to being used as the phantom menace that turned this world upside down on 9/11. Like with Saddam,we give him weapons and such to continue his campaign, and then we go to war him saying that he has chemical gas with which tikill the Kurds and Kuwaties etc. It's no surprise really that Jr finally finished the job after the PetroEuro fiaso. then again ikt shouldnt be a surprise becauseAmerica has this reputation for 'Use & Abuse'.
Ever hear of the first WTC bombing? Al Qaeda didn't just become a boogeyman on 9/11.[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Sure, but I don't really see how that's relevant here. Al Qaeda kinda went rogue between the 80s and 2001, and the Cold War ended ten years prior. The US hasn't been friends with Al Qaeda in years.
PannicAtack
Friends? lol no. They went from business partners to being used as the phantom menace that turned this world upside down on 9/11. Like with Saddam,we give him weapons and such to continue his campaign, and then we go to war him saying that he has chemical gas with which tikill the Kurds and Kuwaties etc. It's no surprise really that Jr finally finished the job after the PetroEuro fiaso. then again ikt shouldnt be a surprise becauseAmerica has this reputation for 'Use & Abuse'.
Ever hear of the first WTC bombing? Al Qaeda didn't just become a boogeyman on 9/11.Yeah, 9/11 wasn't the first attack on the WTC. :roll:
Can anyone send me a link or tell me where to find the debunking of these accusations? I have yet to see valid debunking evidence. Any specific reliable source that I could go by?Diablo112688You have yet to show a source that makes credible accusations from experts in their fields that back up these conspiracy theories, yet we show you evidence from actual scientific studies and photographic evidence and it is not reliable?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment