| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 68123 | 2006-04-18 09:04:00 | Conspiracy theory anyone | Barnabas (4562) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 447292 | 2006-04-19 09:53:00 | A possible solution (www.iep.utm.edu) to these moronic conspiracy theories. | vinref (6194) | ||
| 447293 | 2006-04-19 09:56:00 | have you anticonspiracy guys bothered to look at the information thats out there yet? jet because its a "conspiracy" doesnt make it false. lol those flat-earth guys are funny as |
motorbyclist (188) | ||
| 447294 | 2006-04-19 10:08:00 | have you anticonspiracy guys bothered to look at the information thats out there yet? jet because its a "conspiracy" doesnt make it false. lol those flat-earth guys are funny as Yeah. I saw that moronic "documentary" where some guy uses the skimpiest of inferences to show that the Twin Towers was not distroyed by the planes that slammed into them. Some cannabis-induced reasoning concerning shadows and light effect on a low quality image. Couldn't decide between laughing my nuts off or decrying the gross gullibility of the public. |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 447295 | 2006-04-19 10:44:00 | Yeah. I saw that moronic "documentary" where some guy uses the skimpiest of inferences to show that the Twin Towers was not distroyed by the planes that slammed into them. Some cannabis-induced reasoning concerning shadows and light effect on a low quality image. Couldn't decide between laughing my nuts off or decrying the gross gullibility of the public. but did you look further to see if their claims were substantiated? you would be surprised. the events of 9/11 are somewhat debatable would you not say? |
motorbyclist (188) | ||
| 447296 | 2006-04-19 10:56:00 | Yeah. I saw that moronic "documentary" where some guy uses the skimpiest of inferences to show that the Twin Towers was not distroyed by the planes that slammed into them. Some cannabis-induced reasoning concerning shadows and light effect on a low quality image. Couldn't decide between laughing my nuts off or decrying the gross gullibility of the public. Did you see the Naudet brothers 9/11 documentary? The guys that were the only ones that caught the first plane hitting on film. In there they talk to some firemen who say they saw the "windows popping out floor by floor...boom...boom...boom..." just like a planned detonation. Only after that did the building collapse. Why did the second building to get hit collapse first? |
CYaBro (73) | ||
| 447297 | 2006-04-19 11:03:00 | but did you look further to see if their claims were substantiated? you would be surprised. the events of 9/11 are somewhat debatable would you not say? I did not look any further because the basic procceses came to this. The most credible explanation that terrorists under the influence and/or direction of al Qaeda, as proposed by most of the worlds intelligence services (US, European, Russian, Israeli, Iraqi, Iranian, Pakistani, Syrian, Asian, Australasian) and claimed by al Qaeda itself and its surviving operatives such as Zacarias Massaouai, is overturned by incredibly flimsy and illogical arguments backed by spurious evidence, and replaced by incredible theories. Have you looked further into well-researched and document evidence. A google search of publications such as Newsweek, the Guardian, the SMH, the Washington Post, the Independent, the NYTimes etc should furnish you with more than you can read in a week. |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 447298 | 2006-04-19 11:07:00 | Did you see the Naudet brothers 9/11 documentary? The guys that were the only ones that caught the first plane hitting on film. In there they talk to some firemen who say they saw the "windows popping out floor by floor...boom...boom...boom..." just like a planned detonation. Only after that did the building collapse. Why did the second building to get hit collapse first? Dunno. I am not a civil engineer, or an army explosives expert. Are you saying that this piece of evidence mean that something other than those planes brought those towers down? |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 447299 | 2006-04-19 11:13:00 | I did not look any further because the basic procceses came to this. The most credible explanation that terrorists under the influence and/or directio....he Guardian, the SMH, the Washington Post, the Independent, the NYTimes etc should furnish you with more than you can read in a week. yes, but the US govt departments looked at it, not any other countries. the problem is that they refuse anyone else to look at it. those that do using the footage we ARE allowed to view find conclusions inconsistent with that of the usa govt depts. if they (US) allowed an independant investigation, without any threats or other influence, it would be interesting to see what the findings are. osama was trained by the cia, he may well have been in on any such scheme. isnt it interesting how the alleged pilots have reportedly turned up alive? also, the patriot act would normally take years to consruct, and would NEVER be passed under normal circumstances, so how could they release it in october and pass it around november 2001 without having it preconstructed for an event allowing such an act to pass? did you check out those two links i posted earlier? have you looked for info anywhere other than goverment controlled sources? there is some very concerning, unexplained evidence, including firefighters reports of the towers falling (featured in those links i posted) |
motorbyclist (188) | ||
| 447300 | 2006-04-19 11:19:00 | Dunno. I am not a civil engineer, or an army explosives expert. Are you saying that this piece of evidence mean that something other than those planes brought those towers down? Yes that's what I'm saying but that's not the only piece of evidence. |
CYaBro (73) | ||
| 447301 | 2006-04-19 11:20:00 | Dunno. I am not a civil engineer, or an army explosives expert. Are you saying that this piece of evidence mean that something other than those planes brought those towers down? yes, it is very possible, go hunting and see what you find :thumbs: what i would like to see is a completely independant investigation, unpressured by the fbi, prior bias and financial holdings. if it finds the US story to hold, then is does, but sofar the states have not been to reliable with thier "intellegence", just look at all those wmd's they found in iraq! oh thats right, there wasnt any! despite the UN saying to give it more time to find them, the US invaded, secured itself some oil deals, made billions on the way, and found no weapons themselves! did i mention that iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks, but the media propaganda had some ridiculusly large portion of the US public convinced it did? all uncle sam achieved was a bad image, thousands of dead iraq's (and americans) and a big bag o' cash |
motorbyclist (188) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | |||||