Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 91 to 103 of 103

Thread: 9-11

  1. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sportsfan24 View Post
    Just to throw it out there; what about the Tuskegee experiment?

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...is-experiment/


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Bad times. But his post was about the Manhattan Project.


  2. #92

    Default

    The Achilles heel of your theory is the planes and passengers that "were never hijacked".

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyJamesMD View Post
    here's what I think happened and why....

    Whatever hit the Twin towers were not commercial jets, they were some sort of missiles or drones that mimicked the planes.

    Pentagon was hit by a missile. Cheney was in charge as I alluded to before, down in the bunker at the WH. There is no evidence, other than a few planted parts of an old plane, at the Pentagon.

    Something was shot down in Pennsylvania, but dont think it was a plane.

    What happened to the planes? I don't think they were destroyed. I also don't think any hijackers were on there. Many of the hijackers showed up alive.

    The plane customers were either paid off or killed at an undisclosed location.
    Four airliners and 265 people (e.g. 265 families losing someone) had to be disappeared in order to shoot a few missiles and demolish towers with pre-positioned thermite. Using your critical thinking, explain the fate of the planes and passengers that day. Difficulty Level: "Not Sounding Crazy"

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Navin View Post
    The Achilles heel of your theory is the planes and passengers that "were never hijacked".



    Four airliners and 265 people (e.g. 265 families losing someone) had to be disappeared in order to shoot a few missiles and demolish towers with pre-positioned thermite. Using your critical thinking, explain the fate of the planes and passengers that day. Difficulty Level: "Not Sounding Crazy"
    If they can kill thousands of people that day, probably not too hard to kill 265 more.

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyJamesMD View Post
    Howey. stop it. Coming from folks? What folks? There's literally one person on here talking about 9/11 being an inside job. Bad Gopher said the twin towers collapse looked suspicious, nothing else. What other folks? It's so easy for you to group people together. Stop.

    Yes, I did discount Russia for a long time. The dossier that the FBI paid for back during the election is what made me not give it the time of day. Trump paid for prostitutes to urinate on the hotel beds? C'mon now! I'm supposed to give that credibility. However, some of the examples you site, especially the connection to Alfa Bank has me concerned. I'm waiting to see what that investigation brings.

    That being said, Mainstream media has really pushed the Russia narrative, while they did a non-existent job researching the questions of 9/11. I don't trust the mainstream media, so I tend to believe the opposite of what they are telling me in many instances.



    Bush didn't do it himself. And yes, it is good to keep an open mind. Good idea.
    Of course he didn't pay them to urinate on the beds, he paid them handsomely to urinate on his head. If you'd done your homework, then you would know that it is an ancient Slavic custom to have nubile young women (during the height of their monthly fertility cycles) urinate onto the heads of balding males as a hair restorative.
    Ivanka, Melania...the Russians! Do you think this Slavic fixation is mere coincidence
    Don't ever doubt the potency of Eastern European potions and methods. It's been said they can grow testicles on female athletes and street-walkers.
    ~ Wright about Life - Having fun with words since 1989 ~

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GopherJake View Post
    What is the minimum number of people that would have to have remained silent for the past 16 years for whatever minimalist conspiracy theory you can imagine?
    Allow me to play the devil's advocate.

    The nature of conspiracies is that they are compartmental. If there is a conspiracy so large that it required hundreds or thousands of people to be "in on it", most information would be on a need to know basis. Most participation could even be framed as legitimate.

    As for the silence of the participants (other than their participation being framed as legitimate as I already stated), I propose two options. The first is that maybe there have been people who have talked but were labeled crazy conspiracy nuts. Secondly, if the "9/11 was an inside job" crowd are correct, then those responsible are psychopaths. I have no doubt that psychopaths who are willing to kill thousands of people have some pretty sick methods of intimidation.

    I don't think 9/11 was an inside job. I think it was a paradigm shifting event that seemed like it could never happen and therefore some people will believe anything so they don't have to face the truth. When I see those buildings free fall, I can't help but wonder why. But of course, having a confusing and frightening world-changing experience happen on live tv can be difficult to process.

    I do have a problem with people on both sides who entrench themselves in their beliefs. Just like witnessing this disaster might cause some people to retreat into theories as a way of dealing with a horrific event, it could also lead people in the other direction. Unquestioningly accepting whatever story is considered orthodox and persecuting the heretics.

    I like conspiracy theories because I like to challenge my own beliefs. Can I understand other ideas without necessarily accepting them as truth?

    Also, I think there are far more interesting conspiracy theories out there. The OKC bombimg and the branch dividian massacre.
    Summum ius, summa iniuria

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Shoreview
    Posts
    10,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigtenchamps1899 View Post
    Allow me to play the devil's advocate.

    The nature of conspiracies is that they are compartmental. If there is a conspiracy so large that it required hundreds or thousands of people to be "in on it", most information would be on a need to know basis. Most participation could even be framed as legitimate.

    As for the silence of the participants (other than their participation being framed as legitimate as I already stated), I propose two options. The first is that maybe there have been people who have talked but were labeled crazy conspiracy nuts. Secondly, if the "9/11 was an inside job" crowd are correct, then those responsible are psychopaths. I have no doubt that psychopaths who are willing to kill thousands of people have some pretty sick methods of intimidation.

    I don't think 9/11 was an inside job. I think it was a paradigm shifting event that seemed like it could never happen and therefore some people will believe anything so they don't have to face the truth. When I see those buildings free fall, I can't help but wonder why. But of course, having a confusing and frightening world-changing experience happen on live tv can be difficult to process.

    I do have a problem with people on both sides who entrench themselves in their beliefs. Just like witnessing this disaster might cause some people to retreat into theories as a way of dealing with a horrific event, it could also lead people in the other direction. Unquestioningly accepting whatever story is considered orthodox and persecuting the heretics.

    I like conspiracy theories because I like to challenge my own beliefs. Can I understand other ideas without necessarily accepting them as truth?

    Also, I think there are far more interesting conspiracy theories out there. The OKC bombimg and the branch dividian massacre.
    Well, if this isn't the post of the month so far, I don't know what is. Obviously I'm in agreement with advocacy for people on both sides of anything to have an open mind.

    Jake, I apologize for still not answering your "love child" post - and I still intend to. But one of the general, oblique points I would make is that there are essentially two models of history: accidental and conspiratorial. The pollyanna would dismiss the possibility of conspiracy and insist that everything happens accidentally. I see them as being in denial of some of the basic characteristics of human nature; they remind me of Juliette Lewis' character in Kalifornia, who put her fingers in her ears when Michelle Forbes' character is telling her that Early is a psychopathic murderer. The conspiracy nut never met a wacked-out theory(s)he didn't fall for. They're inclined to want everything to have a meaning and a motive and have a hard time accepting that shat happens once in a while. How things actually happen is some combination of the accidental and conspiratorial.

  7. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Gopher View Post
    there are essentially two models of history: accidental and conspiratorial. The pollyanna would dismiss the possibility of conspiracy and insist that everything happens accidentally.
    Good addition, 1899 and BG. Fun to explore. To this point in the quote: I don't think these are the only two possibilities. I wouldn't call a group of terrorists in remote regions of the world hatching a plan to exploit an extreme weak spot in American security to be an "accident." It's also not a "conspiracy."

    Am I misunderstanding something you are trying to convey?

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Shoreview
    Posts
    10,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GopherJake View Post
    Good addition, 1899 and BG. Fun to explore. To this point in the quote: I don't think these are the only two possibilities. I wouldn't call a group of terrorists in remote regions of the world hatching a plan to exploit an extreme weak spot in American security to be an "accident." It's also not a "conspiracy."

    Am I misunderstanding something you are trying to convey?
    I guess it depends on how you define them, but I would consider the terrorist plot to be conspiratorial. In the case of the JFK murder, I would frame it that the CIA hypothesis is conspiratorial while the lone gunman doing it would be accidental - an accident of history, like my former college classmate who was killed in a head-on crash - random and seemingly meaningless.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GopherJake View Post
    Good addition, 1899 and BG. Fun to explore. To this point in the quote: I don't think these are the only two possibilities. I wouldn't call a group of terrorists in remote regions of the world hatching a plan to exploit an extreme weak spot in American security to be an "accident." It's also not a "conspiracy."
    Only when the military is running multiple drills, some which were practicing hijackings, confusing NORAD and the FAA, is this is an extreme weak spot.

  10. #100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyJamesMD View Post
    If they can kill thousands of people that day, probably not too hard to kill 265 more.
    You're strangely incurious about how they handled this element. Ho hum, "probably not too hard".

    Where are the dissident engineers and the splashy Youtubes that explain what happened to the planes and passengers? Apparently there were eight downed planes that day. Four lookalikes --and we know where they crashed-- plus four real ones that nobody has evidence of. What a plan. They synchronized radar tracks with cooperating ATC and FAA personnel across the East Coast and Midwest, and every passenger phone call ended right when the correct lookalike plane crashed. Thanks AT&T! The FBI and Army were in on it too, considering they ID'ed every passenger from AA Flight 77 in the Pentagon via DNA. (source)

    Imagine if you interrogated the weaknesses of your theory with the same passion you put into thermite and WTC7.

  11. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Navin View Post
    You're strangely incurious about how they handled this element. Ho hum, "probably not too hard".

    Where are the dissident engineers and the splashy Youtubes that explain what happened to the planes and passengers? Apparently there were eight downed planes that day. Four lookalikes --and we know where they crashed-- plus four real ones that nobody has evidence of. What a plan. They synchronized radar tracks with cooperating ATC and FAA personnel across the East Coast and Midwest, and every passenger phone call ended right when the correct lookalike plane crashed. Thanks AT&T! The FBI and Army were in on it too, considering they ID'ed every passenger from AA Flight 77 in the Pentagon via DNA. (source)

    Imagine if you interrogated the weaknesses of your theory with the same passion you put into thermite and WTC7.
    Based off your article, it said many could only be identified pieces of tissue. Doesn't give a breakdown of how many bodies from the flight were identifable, not just chunks of "tissue." I see no evidence a plane hit there, no plane, no bodies from the flight, only bodies from those that worked at the pentagon.

  12. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyJamesMD View Post
    Based off your article, it said many could only be identified pieces of tissue. Doesn't give a breakdown of how many bodies from the flight were identifable, not just chunks of "tissue."
    So someone carried tissues from all 64 passengers and identifiable aircraft pieces and the FDR into the fiery aftermath of this missile impact zone and scattered them, and they were all found? And these tissues from real people got moved from the actual landing spot of Flight 77, ( a runway very nearby but no one saw it)? And the FBI, FAA, Army, First Responders, and individual air traffic personnel from across the country were in on it?

    I see no evidence a plane hit there, no plane, no bodies from the flight, only bodies from those that worked at the pentagon.
    There is evidence of a plane, we can agree on that right? You just think it's insufficient or staged/planted. But plane debris was there, no question, it's readily google-able.

    Also a Minnesota pilot watched the crash occur and ID'd the aircraft as a probable American Airlines Boeing 757 or 767 - in the moments before it hit.

  13. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyJamesMD View Post
    Based off your article, it said many could only be identified pieces of tissue. Doesn't give a breakdown of how many bodies from the flight were identifable, not just chunks of "tissue." I see no evidence a plane hit there, no plane, no bodies from the flight, only bodies from those that worked at the pentagon.
    Navin has all but completely disproven your personal sequence of events, Jimmy. Time to let it go.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •