Lonan3 Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 "A fact is a simple statement that everyone believes. It is innocent, unless found guilty. A hypothesis is a novel suggestion that no one wants to believe. It is guilty, until found effective." (Edward Teller 1908-2003, theoretical physicist) There are sufficient facts to partially support either the official version or any one of the many conspiracy theories. There are insufficient facts to thoroughly disprove either. My personal view is that the attempts to cover up the inefficiency of the American response to the threat and to the events of the 11th Sept are largely responsible for the emergence of conspiracy theories. When utter confusion is allied to disaster, it requires strong leadership to make an informed and reasonable response. America did not, and does not, have such leadership - and the reaction to the New Orleans disaster a few years later highlighted that again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 hey crozza. no mate i'm not tameelf, we are different people who, it would seem, have the same train of thought about 9/11. i did read tameelf using the word jewspaper and thats where i got it from. it makes sense. the israelis were part of 9/11, i have no doubt about that. and yes there is a lot of israeli influence in the media, too much in my opinion, and thats why i like the term jewspaper. i really dont think it is right that they are using the media to thier advantage, its worse use of propeganda that Hitler. if you read the papers, watch the news, you will see that its not even news!! how long did everyone go on about anna nicole smiths death for? is that really what eveyone wants to hear about? it that really such big news? i dont think so! hope that clears things up crozza, give me your views on the MSM anyway, would like to hear what you think. [stevie thanks for the links, Im an interested party in this kind of thing /quote] No problem Trinity, glad you read them and i hope everybody else has a look. I know a lot of people can't see it the way i do, and i know that no matter how simple you put it for them they still won't listen. i actually had this conversation with someone a couple of days ago. i think the hardest thing for people is that they dont WANT to believe the people who are suppoedly there to protect them are really the biggest criminals of them all. with power comes greed. we see it in so many other examples, people get in a postion of power and they abuse that power, they forget where they once were, they forget they are there to serve the public, not themselves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 if you read the papers, watch the news, you will see that its not even news!! how long did everyone go on about anna nicole smiths death for? is that really what eveyone wants to hear about? it that really such big news? i dont think so! hope that clears things up crozza, give me your views on the MSM anyway, would like to hear what you think. I suggest you look at the definition of 'news' in a dictionary and then come back and start again. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/news I took a shit this morning. To some people that's news. Just because it isn't what you want to hear, doesn't mean it isn't news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I took a shit this morning. To some people that's news. I can set up a feed into Newsbot for your bowel movements if there's enough demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC-Drift.com Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I took a shit this morning. To some people that's news. I can set up a feed into Newsbot for your bowel movements if there's enough demand. Newsbutt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 i hope everybody see's through this obvious spamming and actually read the posts that have relevance to the thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 so it would now seem there were more clairvoyants who were working on that fatefull day of 9/11. our channel 5's news coverage that day reported to us that......"Sections of the other tower are also crumbling - now the reason this is happening, according to the website for the World Trade Center, they're actually telling us that the structure, the outside cladding of this building is integral to the safety and security of it," states the news anchor following the collapse of the south tower. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...iascripting.htm ok, so amid all the confusion and hysteria on the day, somebody has updated the official WTC website and told us that the outside structure is anchoring the building, that because of the damage to the OUTSIDE of the building, this is why the building has collapsed! this is CONTRARY to the words of the twin towers' designers, as you can read here..... http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/febru...07designers.htm Bollocks!! even i know, even the debunkers like ans and slinky even know, that every modern building is anchored by core columns, not anything to do with the "outside cladding". and the twin towers is no different, as you can see here...... http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html as the channel 5 news coverage goes on, you'll hear the anchor comment, "it is completely enveloped in smoke, its on fire, and we understand this other tower is also in a situation of near collapse" WTF?????? how did they know the building was about to collapse, bearing in mind NO OTHER STEEL FRAMED BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. ok, so the debunkers can look back now and say, yeah, well, err, it did collapse. but how did the people on that day know it was going to collapse, we have now had the BBC fortune tellers, the CNN mind readers, and the new addition, the WTC clairvoyants! the media was obviously scripted that day, there is no other explanation. the BBC and CNN could not have got their information mixed up, especially when they "checked and checked" the information given to them. obvioUsly not, seen as the building was still standing behind them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Nutter. Why do you conspiracy idiots accept the most slight amount of evidence to support your bullshit theories but then wont believe the opinion of the majority of experts? Not all steel buildings are the same. Not all steel buildings that have had fires burned the same. Not all steel buildings that have had fires had airplanes flown into them. As for the news reports, it was chaos with lots of reports coming in from the front line rescue services. I wouldn't take anything that came in to a news team half a globe away as evidence of anything but the tragic chaos that was unfolding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Bollocks!! even i know, even the debunkers like ans and slinky even know, that every modern building is anchored by core columns, not anything to do with the "outside cladding". Actually I didn't know that. I have no interest or knowledge of building construction, steel, brick, straw or whatever and I don't propose to start taking an interest now. My interest in this topic is purely how anyone can be such a certifiable dickhead that's all. You waste a lot of energy on this don't you? What are you hoping to achieve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 dickhead? now, now slinky getting a bit personal now hey? it would now seem to me that you cant even sustain a simple debate with any facts at all. its obvious you don't listen to anyone's opinion and are so far up your own arse you probably wouldnt hear them anyway. my goal that i'm trying to achieve is to prove to people that are sitting on the fence and just observing that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, no facts to back up your theories and a total disrespect for anyone that opposes your opinion. i think you've proved this yourself with your last post! and no, i dont waste a lot of energy on this, its quite easy when you know the truth. i've sat back and watched you all debate it for ages, i've only been posting 2-3 weeks and all you come back with is dickhead! lmfao!!! hey slim, the reason i dont belive the 'so called' experts because they come out with the "pancake theory" it just doesnt make sense. you said not all steel buildings are the same? i never said they were! i said all MODERN (WTC included) steel framed buildings are designed with the structure being dependant on the core columns, and not the outside cladding, as the WTC website supposedly reported minutes after the first building collapsed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Stevie, can I just check - you are telling us you know the truth about 911. You are telling us that the conspirators rigged the Twin Towers and WTC7 with explosives [ no one will notice]. They organized that the Federal Emergency Management Agency arrived on the scene a day early [ they won't tell, and can sit around all day wondering why they are here]. Told jewish people working in the buildings not to go to work [ that type are all on our side]. Sent text messages to a random company telling them of the plot [ well spread a little good luck]. Issued a press release early telling people what they were going to be doing [ damn you fool why didn't you wait half an hour]. Hired actors to go out onto the street to make false claims about the collapses [ they'll keep quiet about the coaching sessions and we can assassinate them if they don't]. Made sure George W was given anti-Anthrax drugs prior to the Anthrax mailings [ that won't look odd - and if anyone finds out we'll say its a double bluff - Dubya knew he'd be safe - he knew about it all - but decided to take the drugs early just because he's stupid] Genuinely - I need you to join up the dots here - please you do it - don't post a million links and cut and paste paragraphs that have been written by other people [as you did in the Great Global Warming Swindle thread - caught you - google is my friend when people suddenly become far too eloquent for their own good - triune brain - WTF]. Just tell me how you think these things are linked together and by who - and tell me how they thought they were going to gain in doing these things. Do it step by step - just explain it to me - do you think you can? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 woah china what are you going on about mate? when did i ever say that jewish people were told not to go to work? when did i say a random company recieved text messages warning of the attacks? hired actors to make false claims about the attacks? when did i say a press release was issued telling people what they are gonna be doing? and when did i say they MADE SURE GW bush was given cipro? so please tell me wtf you are going on about and ill be extremely happy to explain myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Ah you don't read the links you post. That's nice to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 lmao @ china. no son, YOU dont read the links i post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.