Conspiracy Theories are true! mmm not so much?...

  On 2/1/2016 at 12:51 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 2/1/2016 at 7:27 AM, doublename said:

Who killed Gary Webb??

 

delet did, and then he framed cia for it.

cia are always in the frame, poor old cia, even mossad use them as an excuse now and then. heh. There's way more than one agency of wankers with agency out there, is what I'm saying. You of all people should know this,;-p

  On 2/1/2016 at 4:29 PM, delet... said:

 

  On 2/1/2016 at 7:24 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 2/1/2016 at 7:05 AM, Ayya Khema said:

jet fuel do melt steel beams. How else would you explain 911? :)

It doesn't need to melt steel, just weaken it

Popular Mechanics did a series of 9/11 FAQs that walks through all this stuff point by point

And it's all horseshit.

 

Go to architects and engineers for 911 truth and get schooled up. Three towers went down that day, one wasn't hit by an aeroplane. They can't explain building seven using their animal feces jet fuel logic, it was actually built to a much higher standard being a secure government building. nwae, whatever, some people's brains are permanently set on their built in slave mode, "master wouldn't hurt me, master is my friend". Pheh.

 

you didn't reply to my post earlier so i'll pick on you on this one, because this is the point where you typically go full retard.

 

on what basis do you conclude that "architects and engineers for 911" is right and "Popular Mechanics" isn't? do you really have enough relevant knowledge to determine?

 

the point about wtc7 is idiotic of course, it's not they they CAN'T explain it, it's simply that they DON'T explain it via some jet fuel stuff, what you said is simply irrelevant.

Edited February 1, 2016 by eugene

wow, so some people still believe the 911 official report?

 

 

Edited February 1, 2016 by Ayya Khema

Why do hot dogs come in packs of 8 and hot dog buns come in packs of 12

 

Answer:

 

 

  On 1/27/2016 at 1:40 PM, olo said:

Found the article interesting & figured it made a good read for some of us tinfoil hat types.

 

  Quote

It is impossible to keep a major conspiracy under wraps for long because secrets have a way of escaping, an Oxford University study has found.

 

British physicist Dr David Grimes found that the more people involved in a conspiracy, the shorter its lifespan will be.

 

Dr Grimes, who also works as a science writer and broadcaster, said: It is common to dismiss conspiracy theories and their proponents out of hand but I wanted to take the opposite approach, to see how these conspiracies might be possible.

 

To do that, I looked at the vital requirement for a viable conspiracy secrecy.

 

He developed an equation involving conspirator numbers, length of time, and even the effects of conspirators dying, whether of old age or non-natural causes. Also required was a realistic estimation of an individual disclosing a conspiracy.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/128082/20160127/faked-moon-landing-other-conspiracy-theories-would-have-been-exposed-within-4-years-if-they-were-true-scientist.htm

 

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905

 

 

*three pages later*

 

  delet said:

bush did 9/11

  delet said:

bush did 9/11

  delet said:

bush did 9/11

  delet said:

bush did 9/11

  delet said:

bush did 9/11

  Ayya Khema said:

bush did 9/11

 

This thread failed spectacularly somewhere in between

  On 2/1/2016 at 5:05 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 2/1/2016 at 4:29 PM, delet... said:

 

  On 2/1/2016 at 7:24 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 2/1/2016 at 7:05 AM, Ayya Khema said:

jet fuel do melt steel beams. How else would you explain 911? :)

It doesn't need to melt steel, just weaken it

Popular Mechanics did a series of 9/11 FAQs that walks through all this stuff point by point

And it's all horseshit.

 

Go to architects and engineers for 911 truth and get schooled up. Three towers went down that day, one wasn't hit by an aeroplane. They can't explain building seven using their animal feces jet fuel logic, it was actually built to a much higher standard being a secure government building. nwae, whatever, some people's brains are permanently set on their built in slave mode, "master wouldn't hurt me, master is my friend". Pheh.

 

you didn't reply to my post earlier so i'll pick on you on this one, because this is the point where you typically go full retard.

 

on what basis do you conclude that "architects and engineers for 911" is right and "Popular Mechanics" isn't? do you really have enough relevant knowledge to determine?

 

the point about wtc7 is idiotic of course, it's not they they CAN'T explain it, it's simply that they DON'T explain it via some jet fuel stuff, what you said is simply irrelevant.

 

 

http://freedocumentaries.org/documentary/loose-change-9-11-an-american-coup#watch-film

"Did I fall or was I pushed?"

  On 2/1/2016 at 9:11 PM, Ayya Khema said:

 

  On 2/1/2016 at 5:05 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 2/1/2016 at 4:29 PM, delet... said:

 

  On 2/1/2016 at 7:24 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 2/1/2016 at 7:05 AM, Ayya Khema said:

jet fuel do melt steel beams. How else would you explain 911? :)

It doesn't need to melt steel, just weaken it

Popular Mechanics did a series of 9/11 FAQs that walks through all this stuff point by point

And it's all horseshit.

 

Go to architects and engineers for 911 truth and get schooled up. Three towers went down that day, one wasn't hit by an aeroplane. They can't explain building seven using their animal feces jet fuel logic, it was actually built to a much higher standard being a secure government building. nwae, whatever, some people's brains are permanently set on their built in slave mode, "master wouldn't hurt me, master is my friend". Pheh.

 

you didn't reply to my post earlier so i'll pick on you on this one, because this is the point where you typically go full retard.

 

on what basis do you conclude that "architects and engineers for 911" is right and "Popular Mechanics" isn't? do you really have enough relevant knowledge to determine?

 

the point about wtc7 is idiotic of course, it's not they they CAN'T explain it, it's simply that they DON'T explain it via some jet fuel stuff, what you said is simply irrelevant.

 

 

http://freedocumentaries.org/documentary/loose-change-9-11-an-american-coup#watch-film

 

what the fuck are you? why are you quoting my post?

Ayya, you've sorta blown your credibility since being here

Between the Deepak Chopra-esque quantum mysticism

And your willingness to believe in other fringe pseudoscience...

You have shown a profound lack of rigor in your scientific thinking

 

So really, the more credence you put in something

The less credence I'm inclined to put in it

  On 2/1/2016 at 9:07 PM, triachus said:

 

  On 1/27/2016 at 1:40 PM, olo said:

Found the article interesting & figured it made a good read for some of us tinfoil hat types.

 

  Quote

It is impossible to keep a major conspiracy under wraps for long because secrets have a way of escaping, an Oxford University study has found.

 

British physicist Dr David Grimes found that the more people involved in a conspiracy, the shorter its lifespan will be.

 

Dr Grimes, who also works as a science writer and broadcaster, said: It is common to dismiss conspiracy theories and their proponents out of hand but I wanted to take the opposite approach, to see how these conspiracies might be possible.

 

To do that, I looked at the vital requirement for a viable conspiracy secrecy.

 

He developed an equation involving conspirator numbers, length of time, and even the effects of conspirators dying, whether of old age or non-natural causes. Also required was a realistic estimation of an individual disclosing a conspiracy.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/128082/20160127/faked-moon-landing-other-conspiracy-theories-would-have-been-exposed-within-4-years-if-they-were-true-scientist.htm

 

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905

 

 

*three pages later*

 

  delet said:

bush did 9/11

  delet said:

bush did 9/11

  delet said:

bush did 9/11

  delet said:

bush did 9/11

  delet said:

bush did 9/11

  Ayya Khema said:

bush did 9/11

 

This thread failed spectacularly somewhere in between

 

 

don't forget CIA killed Curt Kobain

  On 2/1/2016 at 8:52 PM, Bechuga said:

Why do hot dogs come in packs of 8 and hot dog buns come in packs of 12

 

Answer:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Jews

 

Just buy two packs of hotdog buns and three packs of dogs.

 

 

 

 

Here the buns come as six or a dozen and the hotdogs /has to look it up cause I don't eat that stuff, not casting aspersions(no not aspbergtions, heh) mind/ seems the number in the pack is pretty abitrary, there's six or nine. Of course you could buy as many as you want from the deli. I even found that there are tinned hotdogs! I always whisk myself and trolley past the tinned section.

Jews don't eat hot dogs.

 

Even Hebrew National beef dogs are not kosher technically.

 

Spooky, ennit?

Edited February 2, 2016 by doublename

I've mentioned this before, but it's worth repeating. I was very good friends with the girlfriend and family of a reasonably high profile 9/11 truther from my time of living in the States.

 

He was a complete and utter fraud and didn't hide this from his family or partner. Was making about $60,000 a year from it about 10 years ago. Nothing spectacular, but still a decent living for never underestimating the stupidity of the public.

Building 7 is for me the proof that the destruction of the world trade center was not, exclusively, due to planes.

 

Also the fact that the FBI decide to hold off to all the video from the supposed Boeing that crashed in the Pentagon. They released two video that are kinda weird.

 

Then theres the plane that crashed in the field. where is the tail of the plane, the bodies?

 

A couple of months before the attack, the World trade was sold to Silverstein who assured the Towers in case a terrorist attack that would destroy both towers.

 

I'll pass the details, but I dont believe the official 911 report.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Ayya Khema

  On 2/2/2016 at 3:41 PM, Ayya Khema said:

Building 7 is for me the proof that the destruction of the world trade center was not, exclusively, due to planes.

 

Also the fact that the FBI decide to hold off to all the video from the supposed Boeing that crashed in the Pentagon. They released two video that are kinda weird.

 

Then theres the plane that crashed in the field. where is the tail of the plane, the bodies?

 

A couple of months before the attack, the World trade was sold to Silverstein who assured the Towers in case a terrorist attack that would destroy both towers.

 

I'll pass the details, but I dont believe the official 911 report.

1) it wasn't insured "against terrorist attacks"...it was insured against everything.

 

2) You neglected to mention that he is legally obligated to rebuild the WTC, which costs more than the insurance payout. If someone wanted to profit off foreknowledge of 9/11, that's like the silliest possible way to do it. Offhand I can think of like 20 better ways to do it, and most off them involve the stock market (none of them involve leasing, insuring and rebuilding the WTC at a loss lol).

  On 2/2/2016 at 4:47 PM, LimpyLoo said:

I can think of like 20 better ways to do it

 

 

Proof!

Edited February 2, 2016 by Root5

3) oh and Silverstein skimped on insurance...his backers wanted $5 billion plan, he wanted $1.5 billion plan, settled on $3(ish) billion. I mean, this is like the goofiest insurance scam I've ever heard of. He has to pay his backers off on top of rebuilding costs, plus he's still paying the lease on the now non-existent buildings (and has to for some stipulated amount of time).

 

There's no way he would expect to squeeze a dime out of such a scam. Like I said, there were good ways to profit off of foreknowledge, and this wasn't one of them.

Edited February 2, 2016 by LimpyLoo

are there like more hardcore thruthers paraoid so much that they believe 9/11 was an outside job but later used to get peoples minds off REAL conspiracies? i wish there were.

Watmm needs a "JE" Bat Signal for 9/11 debates

  On 2/2/2016 at 4:47 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 2/2/2016 at 3:41 PM, Ayya Khema said:

Building 7 is for me the proof that the destruction of the world trade center was not, exclusively, due to planes.

 

Also the fact that the FBI decide to hold off to all the video from the supposed Boeing that crashed in the Pentagon. They released two video that are kinda weird.

 

Then theres the plane that crashed in the field. where is the tail of the plane, the bodies?

 

A couple of months before the attack, the World trade was sold to Silverstein who assured the Towers in case a terrorist attack that would destroy both towers.

 

I'll pass the details, but I dont believe the official 911 report.

1) it wasn't insured "against terrorist attacks"...it was insured against everything.

 

2) You neglected to mention that he is legally obligated to rebuild the WTC, which costs more than the insurance payout. If someone wanted to profit off foreknowledge of 9/11, that's like the silliest possible way to do it. Offhand I can think of like 20 better ways to do it, and most off them involve the stock market (none of them involve leasing, insuring and rebuilding the WTC at a loss lol).

 

I am not saying 911 was the plan of Silverstein am I?

 

Ive read about silverstein that may have lost money on 911. I personally wont necessarly believe those who say he lost money or those he doesnt lost money.

 

All I know is that the WTC7 has not collapsed due to fire, or because of structure weakening. Limpyloo, what do you think about WTC7.

 

 

How the towers fall onto themselves defies the law of physics. It appears to ''free fall'' as if the structure underneath do not have any resistance to the top of the tower. Even if the weakening of the structure would have made the top of the towers collapse onto the tower, theres no way it could have made the whole tower fall onto themselves like they did.

Tons of testimony describing explosions in the lobby, ect.

 

I'm not good in english and not too incline to lose time to explain what a video as explain in great details.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Ayya Khema

If you can't explain it you don't understand it

  On 2/2/2016 at 5:33 PM, ThatSpanishGuy said:

If you can't explain it you don't understand it

its qutie evident what happened to WTC7. many workers described, even before the towers had collapsed, explosions in the WTC7.

 

from 20 min of that video, that may help to understand what the explosions were. more then 100 Firefighters all describe the explosions before the towers collapsed.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Ayya Khema