Thread: 9/11 Conspiracy

Whose posted links to the south park show yet? hehe.

Really? Really?

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

OK, thats all fine and dandy memetricverb. Why isnt everybody on Earth besides George Bush and his cronies putting your "evidence" on the news every night?

You've got nothing. You're articles about molten metal dont prove jack. Do you know what they didn't find? A single blasting cap. A single piece of explosive equipment. Do you know how much explosives are necessary for a job like that? Anywhere on all 3 sites where you say explosives were planted, there was NOTHING. The odds of there being explosives are astronomicly small.

Btw, explosives don't make molten metal. They just blow shit apart.

lol. You are so stereotypically (and willfully) misinformed its no surprise you so persistently act as a sock puppet to Universal Mind. Are you the same person? Just asking.

Ill just take this opportunity to repost the strong evidence of explosives as presented by people much more qualified than I (though I do think almost anyone can intuitively understand the basic physical laws that explain how the WTC collapses were impossible without explosives).

But first, here is the weakest evidence, yet the most compelling for those daunted by science. It would be very important in a court trial.

Can you guess why the 911 Commission barred these testimonies from its report, and the City of New York refused to release them through several court battles? Thankfully the 911 Families eventually won, and we have these:

118 Testimonies by Firefighters and first responders.
Heres just one.

"Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." EMS Captain Karin Deshore

Now, some science that cannot be refuted.
Direct Evidence for Explosives: Dr Crocket Grabbe PhDWho's Who in Science and Engineering , 1996, 1997. National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship, 1977-78. Lyndon B. Johnson Fellowship -- University of Texas Graduate Studies, 1973. B.S. in Physics with Highest Honors and Special Honors in Physics -- University of Texas, 1972 (Graduated first in class in Physics, GPA = 3.95)

High Velocity Bursts of Debris From Point-Like Sources in the
WTC Towers

WTC7 Compared to a Controlled Demolition

Memeticverb, you can go ahead and answer my questions any time now. Just go ahead and attempt it whenever you think you're ready.

Reporter: "building 7 has now collapsed"
(ok then why is it still standing in the background)

Forgot to check it was demolished before reading script.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

Does the media have a time machine. how can you report things before they happen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvfmZvppKKU

That is for halfdreaming and the other dumbass trying to argue.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvfmZvppKKU

That is for halfdreaming and the other dumbass trying to argue.

That's the best video about the 9/11 inside job. No, not for the information it gives... I already knew all that. But you can't help but feel good about a bunch of hot babes talking about his... hahaha.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvfmZvppKKU

That is for halfdreaming and the other dumbass trying to argue.

Wow, that is the best evidence I have ever seen for anything. Whatever those girls say is gospel, and I couldn't tell how they were deliberately misleading with the actual facts they stated. I think that if Girls Gone Wild would make a video where slutty college girls recite misleading and far fetched propaganda, it would be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that electronic devices disguised themselves as pilots and crashed airplanes in such a way that Meteticverb and the gang can figure how how the buildings REALLY collapsed in the biggest news story in history yet the masses of actual experts are giving off a deafening silence. I'm sold!

Wow, that is the best evidence I have ever seen for anything. Whatever those girls say is gospel, and I couldn't tell how they were deliberately misleading with the actual facts they stated. I think that if Girls Gone Wild would make a video where slutty college girls recite misleading and far fetched propaganda, it would be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that electronic devices disguised themselves as pilots and crashed airplanes in such a way that Meteticverb and the gang can figure how how the buildings REALLY collapsed in the biggest news story in history yet the masses of actual experts are giving off a deafening silence. I'm sold!

3 options for Universal Mind 911 Multiple choice 101

1)Believe media has time machine to report building 7 before it collapsed
2)Listen to logic or hot chicks
3) <---keep arguing senselessly

Oh yes, that will definitely change his mind. You are opening yourself up for quite a few attacks.

Big text
Stupid corruption of a quote
"Listen to Hot chicks"

... Not working ...

Do you want to change his mind or do you want to post nonesence?

I saw some videos about people saying that it was Osama even before the towers collapsed, like a few minutes after the crash. What's up with that?

Go back to sleep
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3biFKW_vWY

WaKE uP yOU rEALLY ARe dREAMING!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-G9pIn8TaA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkqfC9NX_DY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvgm0RJnHRo

Regarding the early reporting of WTC7 falling: Which do you think is more likely?

1) Someone made a mistake in the confusion of the day.
2) BBC knew the tower would fall before it did, meaning they were in on the conspiracy. Then they were somehow able to keep this quiet despite not being lackeys of the American government but rather journalists who would stand to gain a lot by exposing it.

Now stop it. You sound like a raving lunatic.

Originally Posted by Sybot

Regarding the early reporting of WTC7 falling: Which do you think is more likely?

1) Someone made a mistake in the confusion of the day.
2) BBC knew the tower would fall before it did, meaning they were in on the conspiracy. Then they were somehow able to keep this quiet despite not being lackeys of the American government but rather journalists who would stand to gain a lot by exposing it.

Now stop it. You sound like a raving lunatic.

You taking things out of context. Whats more likely:

1. BBC made up a report about WTC7 falling because they were confused, and then coincidentally "lost" the source of the report.

2. BBC got a report from other people on the scene (proven) who were told that WTC7 was going to collapse, but when angry 911 Families asked them how they could have known such a thing, "the source" then told them to shut-up and they all conveniently forgot how they found out or who had told them. To this day, no official has been found to explain how they were able to make the prediction that the perfectly stable and motionless WTC7 was going to "collapse."

WTC7 Compared to a Controlled Demolition

Originally Posted by Mystic7

3 options for Universal Mind 911 Multiple choice 101

1)Believe media has time machine to report building 7 before it collapsed
2)Listen to logic or hot chicks
3) <---keep arguing senselessly

I have a feeling I might be arguing with a 15 year old. Hey Junior, answer the questions I keep asking. They keep getting ignored. If you can't anwer them but keep acting like that any way, then you are acting in a very religious fundamentalist manner. And "blah" does not qualify as a counterargument.

Now I am going to answer your question. In return, I ask that you answer mine. If you will not do that, then you are not really here for intellectually honest discussion. The answer is none of those. If the story is for real, then the media could have easily gotten a false report based on the fact that people were informed that it apparently was going to happen.

Your turn.

Your turn

You enjoy this game.

1. BBC made up a report about WTC7 falling because they were confused, and then coincidentally "lost" the source of the report.

2. BBC got a report from other people on the scene (proven) who were told that WTC7 was going to collapse, but when angry 911 Families asked them how they could have known such a thing, "the source" then told them to shut-up and they all conveniently forgot how they found out or who had told them. To this day, no official has been found to explain how they were able to make the prediction that the perfectly stable and motionless WTC7 was going to "collapse."

And they haven't achieved anything in regards to explaining why such an error is even possible in the first place. We are suppose to believe that in the most important event, they are so incompetent they predict the collapse of an entire building before it actually falls down. And not only that bizarre error on their hands, but they cannot even explain losing the sources for how they got the news "wrong". So they can't even explain where they got the source to clear anything up! No, they have the source. They are not allowed to reveal it obviously. They got the timing wrong. And the mysterious source that knew what was going to happen was correct and ordering them what to say. If anything else was the case. It's unlikely they would fail to explain their sources and lose tapes and things that would clear their name, being one of the most important documented events in history, and with such ability to cover it. But no, they lost the files for that day. Oh dear you lost the evidence that would prove your innocence. And santa is real.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

And they haven't achieved anything in regards to explaining why such an error is even possible in the first place. We are suppose to believe that in the most important event, they are so incompetent they predict the collapse of an entire building before it actually falls down. And not only that bizarre error on their hands, but they cannot even explain losing the sources for how they got the news "wrong". So they can't even explain where they got the source to clear anything up! No, they have the source. They are not allowed to reveal it obviously. They got the timing wrong. And the mysterious source that knew what was going to happen was correct and ordering them what to say. If anything else was the case. It's unlikely they would fail to explain their sources and lose tapes and things that would clear their name, being one of the most important documented events in history, and with such ability to cover it. But no, they lost the files for that day. Oh dear you lost the evidence that would prove your innocence. And santa is real.

But how can you think it's possible that BBC was in on the conspiracy? It's a news agency packed with ambitious reporters just dying to get a scoop. Especially if the scoop is against the US or British governments.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

You enjoy this game.

You lost this game.

Originally Posted by dodobird

how can you think it's possible that BBC was in on the conspiracy?

the only thing that can assist you in understanding this is perhaps a cartoon song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIWjSGQKEJc

Originally Posted by universal mind

You lost this game

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNbRjOE6sGc

Originally Posted by memeticverb

2. BBC got a report from other people on the scene (proven) who were told that WTC7 was going to collapse, but when angry 911 Families asked them how they could have known such a thing, "the source" then told them to shut-up and they all conveniently forgot how they found out or who had told them. To this day, no official has been found to explain how they were able to make the prediction that the perfectly stable and motionless WTC7 was going to "collapse."

Given that the firefighting operation in the building had been abandoned leaving fires burning and the building had suffered structral damage, it was a safe guess that the building would collapse. Of course there is no way of knowing whether this was the case or if the source knew about a conspiracy. Whatever the case that the BBC report is not proof of any wrongdoing because of this uncertainty.

Also, by insinuating that the BBC convered it up, you are saying that they are supporting the conspiracy, which as I said before doesn't make any sense.

the building had suffered structral damage, it was a safe guess that the building would collapse.

A safe guess? Is it a safe guess after Larry Silverstein admits on television that they decided to PULL (demolish) the building? Note this is after they tried very hard to explain how it fell into it's own footprint. When that failed. Oh yeah it was pulled on purpose. Yet anyone that works in the industry knows you can never demolish a building on short notice without planning ahead. So that doesn't add up at all. First it collapsed, then it was demolished. They can never get their story straight. But no, it makes perfect sense to Sybot. It's perfectly reasonable that BBC would report the collapse before it happened. Not give out any sources or explain the mistake. While Silverstein admits it was demolished. And it wasn't even hit by anything. It was just a very weak building with lots of critical information in it that needed to be destroyed immediately. Sybot your right that's perfectly sensible to assume they are not hiding anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTUEjnb-fO0

The only reason why people like Universal Mind are still telling themselves the American Government is completely innocent when it comes to 9/11, is because all people tend to be stubborn. Like no matter how much proof you would launch at an creationists, he just isn't going to accept it.

Somewhat a good thing, is that politics change. And maybe in 20 years or so, Universal Mind can look at the current government somewhat more detached. Look at the facts, look at the lies.

You can't keep up acting like your government hasn't committed crimes and betrayed the American people.

And probably, in 20 years, you will agree. Only probably, you will act like you don't care. Like how Christians 'forgot' how wrong they were about the flatness of the earth, even while they are as wrong right now about evolution.

If you want to stay such a polarised sheep that can't keep his emotions out of thinking out of politics, at least vote for Ron Paul, or one of the other rare people, besides the large majority that wants to keep you stupid, of presidential candidates.

Tower 7.
+
there just happened to be training-operations at 9/11 for the very yets that should defend against airplane-highjacks.
+
The CIA not releasing files about Bin Laden and such, and about how most of the 'highjackers' of the 9/11 flights are still alive.
+
Your own president and vice president not willing to speak under oath about 9/11...
+
to much to mention.