Conspiracy Theories for Cynics
Discussion
jshell said:
As soon as I see the words "Free Fall Speed" in relation to 9/11, I immediately categorise the person presenting the theory as a complete f
king fruit loop who's been watching too many choob-tube videos...
Yeah but it sounds good. Makes it look like the teller has some knowledge in the face of uninterested surfers. Disclosure dudes, its coming....king fruit loop who's been watching too many choob-tube videos...Mind you, Judy Wood and 9/11. Now that is true conspiracy loony tunes..
Here's a new one on me. My boss just sent me this , apparently the moon is a hologram. Well I'm convinced...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3axPn65MGM&fe...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3axPn65MGM&fe...
KarlMac said:
Whilst I never doubted the twin towers, the one that hit the Pentagon and the one that crash landed always seemed 'not right', and I couldn't even tell you why. I've read about the theory that the pentagon was hit by a missile but could never come up with a compelling motive.
I get the feeling that these two were genuine attacks, but had difficult decisions made that affected the results.It would not surprise me if the Pentagon could have been shot down, but was allowed to crash in to the (military) building rather than risk further civilian casualties. That would lead to some difficult arguments after the event if it became public though.
Flight 93 I'm not so sure about. The logical solution would have been to shoot it down before it reached an inhabited area (assuming it was possible to do so). If that was the case though, why make up a story regarding the passengers forcing a crash? Perhaps the two happened pretty much simultaneously - the plane was shot down while the passengers were struggling to gain control. If that was the case and the story about the passengers came out first then it's very hard to subsequently say "yeah - we shot it down". There would be uproar about shooting down a plane full of heroes.
Not sure, and not sure we'll ever know. I certainly don't subscribe to the "it was the US government attacking itself" nonsense.
jshell said:
As soon as I see the words "Free Fall Speed" in relation to 9/11, I immediately categorise the person presenting the theory as a complete fking fruit loop who's been watching too many choob-tube videos...
NIST must be full of fruit loops then.king fruit loop who's been watching too many choob-tube videos...One gets the sense that you are not even casually familiar with elementary details on the topic at hand.
I love all this stuff, don't believe a word of it but find it quite entertaining.
The Kennedy assassination is the only one I think there is more to it than meets the eye.
David Kelly suicide is unusual but nothing more than that IMO
Anything to do with the moon is hilarious
9/11 and Dunblane stuff I find a bit disrespectful
The Kennedy assassination is the only one I think there is more to it than meets the eye.
David Kelly suicide is unusual but nothing more than that IMO
Anything to do with the moon is hilarious
9/11 and Dunblane stuff I find a bit disrespectful
Robb F said:
scherzkeks, I did type out a long reply, but halfway through lost interest.
I'm sure you did, but we'll never know. It is rather difficult to challenge criticism levied by experts in the field when you are not an expert. I would suggest watching the short-form version of the "Experts Speak Out" video over at A&E and drawing your own conclusions. If you can walk away from that confident in your belief of the (current) official expalation for the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7, then more power to you.
Robb F said:
Still waiting for that list of stuff you say doesn't make any sense...
We've discussed a few items that I find questionable. I see you deleted your reply concerning the video. Good choice.
Advertising that you are entirely unfamiliar with the expert assessments you would criticize is rather unwise.
Robb F said:
Nah but go on, do a list
He is not going to, because his ego is wrapped up in two concepts:1. He knows more than other people (sheeple).
2. If he is wrong, then he is an idiot, and he doesn't want to feel like an idiot.
Every major certification body for the relevant experts has publicly disowned all of the """experts""" that are in the various videos he puts forward, or have anything to do with A&E. But, of course, for the reasons above, his """experts""" are clearly better than the other experts, because conspiracy. If there were 99,999,999 experts saying it was one way, and his 1 """expert""" saying the other way, he would still side with the one, because he has already invested himself in that belief.
P.S. He will respond to this with "If you say so
."Is this the NIST info you were talking about?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/...
Maybe provide your explanation as to what happened. I fail to see how rigging enough explosives (thousands of man hours) and going undetected and not one member of the team feeling remorse is remotely feasible.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/...
Maybe provide your explanation as to what happened. I fail to see how rigging enough explosives (thousands of man hours) and going undetected and not one member of the team feeling remorse is remotely feasible.
scherzkeks said:
Advertising that you are entirely unfamiliar with the expert assessments you would criticize is rather unwise.
Given that the NIST report is 130 pages long and the annexes run to 75MB of PDFs I doubt that many people are entirely familiar with it. However a quick skim indicates they say that the temperature of the fires wouldn't have been enough to heat column 79 to the point of failure, but that thermal expansion increased the load on joints to the point that caused the collapse of floor 13 and a subsequent cascade of failures.
So why are conspiracy theorists arguing that the fires weren't hot enough to cause the columns to fail and therefore it must have been the black helicopter brigade sneaking tonnes of explosives in, when the "official story" doesn't say the columns were weakened to the point of collapse by the fire and presents a perfectly plausible (backed up by a lot of structural modelling) explanation for the failure?
I can't watch youtube videos at work, are you able to summarise the points that they claim indicate the "official story" is false?
scherzkeks said:
I'm sure you did, but we'll never know. It is rather difficult to challenge criticism levied by experts in the field when you are not an expert.
I would suggest watching the short-form version of the "Experts Speak Out" video over at A&E and drawing your own conclusions. If you can walk away from that confident in your belief of the (current) official expalation for the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7, then more power to you.
If they had the proof they would be in the mainstream news shocking the world. But they do that, they lose and funding from flogging DVD's and selling out hotel conference rooms to the converted. This epic in cinematography, is the full version FOC? And how many architects and engineers are in the US?I would suggest watching the short-form version of the "Experts Speak Out" video over at A&E and drawing your own conclusions. If you can walk away from that confident in your belief of the (current) official expalation for the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7, then more power to you.
They are like the other "experts", pilots for truth, the one that creep up on Lets Roll, loose change etc. or the other sites with the same bent. Maybe Mr Shouty at Prison Planet.
They all get something out of prolonging this. I think there are two types that may be linked. They have no clue and it is in ignorance, they have a clue but like the money and attention from the followers. I expect many followers to have no clue, that is fit the first assumption.
You keep mentioning experts. Which ones?
Colonial said:
Is this the NIST info you were talking about?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/...
Maybe provide your explanation as to what happened. I fail to see how rigging enough explosives (thousands of man hours) and going undetected and not one member of the team feeling remorse is remotely feasible.
No it isn't. The free-fall statements are found on the NIST site. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/...
Maybe provide your explanation as to what happened. I fail to see how rigging enough explosives (thousands of man hours) and going undetected and not one member of the team feeling remorse is remotely feasible.
I am not in a position to offer an explanation. I find the (current) official explanation hard to believe, based on the research carried out by experts who disagree with it. The previous official explanation was also hard to believe, and was discredited and dropped.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff