niblick1874 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I think that would be fair if not for the fuss surrounding his release. It was a huge news story, yet the accepted truth in the media and for your average punter in the street is that he's guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I agree to an extent but the problem with the 21st century where we have kickback and FB etc is you come across genuine tin foil hatters frequently, there are a couple frequently posting on KB just now. People dismiss conspiracies because of these guys and the whole sheep, blind pish patter they come out with. Ironically they do more to stifle discussion than anything else. Do you want to enlighten me as to the conspiracy theories that I think hold water? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daydream Believer Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 The problem with people citing a lack of reliable sources for conspiracy theories is that that is precisely the point of the conspiracy theory. The 'reliable' media outlets are very close to the political establishment, this is hardly a secret. Therefore, the chances of them reporting on a major conspiracy are almost zero. How many journalists do you reckon knew all about this sex-crime stuff involving the MPs for years? Main news outlets didn't touch it though. A lot of stuff is testable now though. Students around the world are capable of bouncing lasers off the reflectors on the moon yet the people who believe the moon landings were faked simply refuse to accept that they were wrong. They just make up more stuff to attempt to refute the evidence that's been presented. Independent experts review UFO footage and conclude that it's fake and the conspiracy theorists refuse to accept it. Unfortunately, a complete lack of objectivity seems to go along with the conspiracy theory outlook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted April 21, 2015 Author Share Posted April 21, 2015 Do you want to enlighten me as to the conspiracy theories that I think hold water? I have no idea what goes on in that messed up head of yours so I don't know how I could answer that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I have no idea what goes on in that messed up head of yours so I don't know how I could answer that. The point is you can't because I have not told you, yet you say my head is messed up. You call me a tinfoil hat embarrassment to conspiracy theorists. Not to bright of you as you are jumping to conclusions with no facts, something you claim the tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted April 21, 2015 Author Share Posted April 21, 2015 The point is you can't because I have not told you, yet you say my head is messed up. You call me a tinfoil hat embarrassment to conspiracy theorists. Not to bright of you as you are jumping to conclusions with no facts, something you claim the tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists do. You seem to think every time I post I'm talking about you, such a weird little cookie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 A lot of stuff is testable now though. Students around the world are capable of bouncing lasers off the reflectors on the moon yet the people who believe the moon landings were faked simply refuse to accept that they were wrong. They just make up more stuff to attempt to refute the evidence that's been presented. Independent experts review UFO footage and conclude that it's fake and the conspiracy theorists refuse to accept it. Unfortunately, a complete lack of objectivity seems to go along with the conspiracy theory outlook. Every conspiracy theory is a separate thing. To lump them all together and ignore them because one or two of them are out there is to hand civilization and everything that goes with it to the dogs. I am sure you would agree that there are bunches of not very nice people in positions of power around the world and I smell a rat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) You seem to think every time I post I'm talking about you, such a weird little cookie. Not only not knowing but coming up with the wrong conclusion. You're on a role. Edited April 21, 2015 by niblick1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted April 21, 2015 Author Share Posted April 21, 2015 Not only not knowing but coming up with the wrong conclusion. You're on a role. You're obsessed with me, it's flattering really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I met a guy once who got shitfaced (we were all battered) who was telling us takes of his various jaunts abroad. He claimed later in the evening that he'd played a small part in the shafting of Megrahi. He had some unbelievable details that made me think he was either telling the truth or had been told the truth by somebody else. Or I suppose he could have just been a great yarn-spinner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 No, it hasn't. Al Megrahi remains a convicted murderer and a lot of people believe he is guilty. The government has not acknowledged the crime it committed in convicting him nor has it made any efforts to apologise to the families of the dead, or of the dead convicted murderer. I know it was a conspiracy, you know it was a conspiracy, but the public at large do not. I've always found that anyone from outside Scotland who I've talked about this with is astonished to hear that there might be doubt over the conviction. Even the American families think he's guilty. Remember the media reaction when Al Megrahi was released? The reaction of the UK prime minister? The reaction of the US president? The conspiracy is still in full swing. Al-Megrahi - this very much annoyed me. Cameron AND Obama chucking the Scottish Government under the bus - when they were secretly very relieved that no appeal would have to be heard. 9/11 - what annoyed me most, conspiracies apart, is that if you believe the official story - Bin Laden fronting Al-Qaeda set up an audacious coordinated attack - well, he was a Saudi national. Why the feck then did we take this out on Iraq? Icke is an interesting tale. He totally lost his shit and then re-invented himself as a conspiracy guru and claims that it was information overload from seeing the real world that made him go off reservation. Yet, for all his crackpot moon-is-a-hollow-observatory stuff he's been on the money a good number of times. As have many of the more scurrilous websites which, often rejected as tin-foil hat wearers, they were on the money about Cyril Smith, Elm Tree Guest House, Saville and the Royals well before the MSM paid any heed. And I find it unsurprising how the bodies of sacrificial lambs - which seems to be 70s DJs for the most part, are piled up for lesser crimes than the likes of Lord Jenners (he of the on/off dementia) - all giving the impression that Plod is investigating yet never nearing the real perpetrators (and the names that come up online most definitely include current politicians) - tell me that isn't orchestrated by an establishment that clearly has far, far more control over the media and the Police than we, in this supposedly "free" country, believe. I also found it quite revealing that Cameron wants to use media-censoring moves to silence bloggers and also tried to link conspiracy theorists in as "peaceful terrorists". If, as most claim, these conspiracy theorists are all barking - why the need to smear and silence them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiewave Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 It's all true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Al-Megrahi - this very much annoyed me. Cameron AND Obama chucking the Scottish Government under the bus - when they were secretly very relieved that no appeal would have to be heard. 9/11 - what annoyed me most, conspiracies apart, is that if you believe the official story - Bin Laden fronting Al-Qaeda set up an audacious coordinated attack - well, he was a Saudi national. Why the feck then did we take this out on Iraq? Icke is an interesting tale. He totally lost his shit and then re-invented himself as a conspiracy guru and claims that it was information overload from seeing the real world that made him go off reservation. Yet, for all his crackpot moon-is-a-hollow-observatory stuff he's been on the money a good number of times. As have many of the more scurrilous websites which, often rejected as tin-foil hat wearers, they were on the money about Cyril Smith, Elm Tree Guest House, Saville and the Royals well before the MSM paid any heed. And I find it unsurprising how the bodies of sacrificial lambs - which seems to be 70s DJs for the most part, are piled up for lesser crimes than the likes of Lord Jenners (he of the on/off dementia) - all giving the impression that Plod is investigating yet never nearing the real perpetrators (and the names that come up online most definitely include current politicians) - tell me that isn't orchestrated by an establishment that clearly has far, far more control over the media and the Police than we, in this supposedly "free" country, believe. I also found it quite revealing that Cameron wants to use media-censoring moves to silence bloggers and also tried to link conspiracy theorists in as "peaceful terrorists". If, as most claim, these conspiracy theorists are all barking - why the need to smear and silence them? Er, we "took out" 9/11 on Afghanistan, which was fair enough given Al Qaeda were hiding out there. Iraq was different entirely because that was Junior copying Daddy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Er, we "took out" 9/11 on Afghanistan, which was fair enough given Al Qaeda were hiding out there. Iraq was different entirely because that was Junior copying Daddy. It's not really "fair enough" is it though - to blame and bomb entire countries because some Saudi national and his band of zealots hid in a cave network in their mountains. Would be like the US bombing London because Julian Assange is wanted by them and we are then guilty by association... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 It's not really "fair enough" is it though - to blame and bomb entire countries because some Saudi national and his band of zealots hid in a cave network in their mountains. Would be like the US bombing London because Julian Assange is wanted by them and we are then guilty by association...Assange isn't on UK soil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daydream Believer Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Every conspiracy theory is a separate thing. To lump them all together and ignore them because one or two of them are out there is to hand civilization and everything that goes with it to the dogs. I am sure you would agree that there are bunches of not very nice people in positions of power around the world and I smell a rat. I do agree with that but if I wanted to prove a conspiracy theory I would absolutely forget about it because it is so subjective. If someone wants to prove that the government was responsible for 911, then the worst thing that they can do is to start with the premise that people in power are not nice. It means nothing in terms of the theory itself and removes any semblance of objectivity. I broadly agree that there are a lot of people out there who are up to no good but the websites that are most prominent in the search are mostly so partisan that they become completely untrustworthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandt Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 http://vault.fbi.gov/hottel_guy/Guy%20Hottel%20Part%201%20of%201/view Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 It's not really "fair enough" is it though - to blame and bomb entire countries because some Saudi national and his band of zealots hid in a cave network in their mountains. Would be like the US bombing London because Julian Assange is wanted by them and we are then guilty by association...I'll agree to disagree then. I had no issue with invading Afghanistan. I have issues with the failure to invade properly and leave a proper government in place but that's a different argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) I do agree with that but if I wanted to prove a conspiracy theory I would absolutely forget about it because it is so subjective. If someone wants to prove that the government was responsible for 911, then the worst thing that they can do is to start with the premise that people in power are not nice. It means nothing in terms of the theory itself and removes any semblance of objectivity. I broadly agree that there are a lot of people out there who are up to no good but the websites that are most prominent in the search are mostly so partisan that they become completely untrustworthy. Sift threw it. Don't let that stop you having a good look. As for 9/11 I see it as wanting questions answered that have already been asked. For starters, let's see the video surveillance of the pentagon when the plane hit. I don't see why they would have a problem with that unless it was not what we are being told. Edited April 21, 2015 by niblick1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I don't see why they would have a problem with that unless it was not what we are being told. Here we have the mind of a conspiracy theorist. A plane crashes in to the US headquarters of the Department of Defence but you can't watch the video so the only explanation is that it's to cover up a lie. Outside the fact 200 people died, do you imagine the US wants to hand out surveillance of one of its most important and secret laden buildings to satisfy your ghoulish urges? But, no. You see a lack of evidence as proof of anything you want. You tell people you have an open mind and are questioning authority when, in fact, you have an agenda and will ignore any possibility to the contrary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 See 9/11? How they spent ages rigging the towers up with explosives and then flew planes in to them? Why the planes? Why not just say terrorists rigged the tower? Why risk blowing any wirings or displacing any settings by slamming a jet in to them? That's what doesn't make sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 See 9/11? How they spent ages rigging the towers up with explosives and then flew planes in to them? Why the planes? Why not just say terrorists rigged the tower? Why risk blowing any wirings or displacing any settings by slamming a jet in to them? That's what doesn't make sense to me. It's almost as if conspiracy theorists don't apply their own laser-like powers of investigation to themselves and their theories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 See 9/11? How they spent ages rigging the towers up with explosives and then flew planes in to them? Why the planes? Why not just say terrorists rigged the tower? Why risk blowing any wirings or displacing any settings by slamming a jet in to them? That's what doesn't make sense to me. That's what I don't get about the controlled explosion conspiracy. Thousands of people working in the buildings at all hours and they didn't think - hang on a second, what are all these workmen doing ripping off the cladding on multiple levels and sticking explosives into the walls for... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroonblood22 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 That's what I don't get about the controlled explosion conspiracy. Thousands of people working in the buildings at all hours and they didn't think - hang on a second, what are all these workmen doing ripping off the cladding on multiple levels and sticking explosives into the walls for... I think one of the main aspects that made me think there MIGHT be an alternative truth to 9/11 is how the largely aluminium planes managed to penetrate the largely concrete and iron walls of the towers like a hot knife through butter? The stories from the 9/11 commission are widely regarded as pretty suspect also but I don't have any theories as to what really happened, just some things don't seem to add up. I also have a large amount of scepticism about the Princess Diana incident but I've not even tried a tin foil hat on yet so I don't want to 'stare too far into the abyss' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboInSouthsea Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I think one of the main aspects that made me think there MIGHT be an alternative truth to 9/11 is how the largely aluminium planes managed to penetrate the largely concrete and iron walls of the towers like a hot knife through butter? The stories from the 9/11 commission are widely regarded as pretty suspect also but I don't have any theories as to what really happened, just some things don't seem to add up. I also have a large amount of scepticism about the Princess Diana incident but I've not even tried a tin foil hat on yet so I don't want to 'stare too far into the abyss' I'd be more surprised if they had just bounced off as they only weighed several hundred tons and were travelling a few hundred miles an hour into glass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I think one of the main aspects that made me think there MIGHT be an alternative truth to 9/11 is how the largely aluminium planes managed to penetrate the largely concrete and iron walls of the towers like a hot knife through butter? The stories from the 9/11 commission are widely regarded as pretty suspect also but I don't have any theories as to what really happened, just some things don't seem to add up. I also have a large amount of scepticism about the Princess Diana incident but I've not even tried a tin foil hat on yet so I don't want to 'stare too far into the abyss' The absolute truth of that car crash was that the only passenger who wore a seatbelt, lived. Royal involvement? That is a trip into the dark recesses of the world wide web which is so deep it's impossible to ascertain the truth and cross-check evidence. It takes in everything from Jimmy Saville to Jill Dando via a disappearing cousin, abducted Indian children, Lord Mountbatten, various politicians and a shit-load of paedophiles...if even a proportion of it is true it just beggars belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroonblood22 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I'd be more surprised if they had just bounced off as they only weighed several hundred tons and were travelling a few hundred miles an hour into glass Indeed, bouncing off would be just as silly. Except they weren't hurtling a few hundred miles an hour into glass - if you think glass is what kept the twin towers standing strong for over 30 years then I'm afraid you need to do some research into the construction industry. There are many experts in both the aviation and construction industry who agree with this belief that the aircraft would have crumpled on impact whilst still penetrating the structural beams of the tower, just not to anywhere near the same extent. That being said, I want to stress again I'm not presenting any alternative conspiracies, just pointing out like many others that certain aspects are questionable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroonblood22 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 The absolute truth of that car crash was that the only passenger who wore a seatbelt, lived. Royal involvement? That is a trip into the dark recesses of the world wide web which is so deep it's impossible to ascertain the truth and cross-check evidence. It takes in everything from Jimmy Saville to Jill Dando via a disappearing cousin, abducted Indian children, Lord Mountbatten, various politicians and a shit-load of paedophiles...if even a proportion of it is true it just beggars belief. Hence why I don't even want to look into that abyss!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboInSouthsea Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Indeed, bouncing off would be just as silly. Except they weren't hurtling a few hundred miles an hour into glass - if you think glass is what kept the twin towers standing strong for over 30 years then I'm afraid you need to do some research into the construction industry. There are many experts in both the aviation and construction industry who agree with this belief that the aircraft would have crumpled on impact whilst still penetrating the structural beams of the tower, just not to anywhere near the same extent. That being said, I want to stress again I'm not presenting any alternative conspiracies, just pointing out like many others that certain aspects are questionable. I appreciate that it wasn't just glass holding the buildings up but it did make up a good percentage of the outer surface of them. I would guess that the main structural pillars would be both central and on each corner otherwise there wouldn't be much room inside meaning that the jets could quite easily penetrate the outer shell. I do remember watching a programme about this and the towers were in fact designed to stop aircraft flying into them albeit only small private ones and not airliners. Get your points although pretty sure the planes would be doing at least 200+ mph tho'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I appreciate that it wasn't just glass holding the buildings up but it did make up a good percentage of the outer surface of them. I would guess that the main structural pillars would be both central and on each corner otherwise there wouldn't be much room inside meaning that the jets could quite easily penetrate the outer shell. I do remember watching a programme about this and the towers were in fact designed to stop aircraft flying into them albeit only small private ones and not airliners. Get your points although pretty sure the planes would be doing at least 200+ mph tho'. The support for the towers was inside. the outside shell was not load bearing and was cantilevered out. A Jet airliner flying at speed woudl easily penetrate the outer shell. However, the North Tower (not one of the two main towers) was a controlled demolition about 10 hours after the planes struck. Google it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Lighter Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Here we have the mind of a conspiracy theorist. A plane crashes in to the US headquarters of the Department of Defence but you can't watch the video so the only explanation is that it's to cover up a lie. Outside the fact 200 people died, do you imagine the US wants to hand out surveillance of one of its most important and secret laden buildings to satisfy your ghoulish urges? But, no. You see a lack of evidence as proof of anything you want. You tell people you have an open mind and are questioning authority when, in fact, you have an agenda and will ignore any possibility to the contrary. The 'national security' angle doesn't wash though does it.Anyone can have a wander around the Pentagon using Google Earth,and any video footage of an approaching aircraft would've been filmed by cameras facing out from the building anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masonic Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I think one of the main aspects that made me think there MIGHT be an alternative truth to 9/11 is how the largely aluminium planes managed to penetrate the largely concrete and iron walls of the towers like a hot knife through butter? Even water will cut through steel if there is enough pressure behind it. The kinetic energy of a fully loaded Boeing 757, traveling at approximately 400 knots, would be enormous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Lighter Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) That's what I don't get about the controlled explosion conspiracy. Thousands of people working in the buildings at all hours and they didn't think - hang on a second, what are all these workmen doing ripping off the cladding on multiple levels and sticking explosives into the walls for... That's the point though, thousands of people going about their business are probably not going to take much notice of 'workmen' coming and going,the towers were quite old and more than likely high maintenance.If we were to speculate that it was an inside job and controlled explosions were used then those rigging the building aren't exactly going to advertise themselves,they'd have suitable ID's and proper clearance to be working in the building. Not that I'm saying that's what happened of course, I just think to dismiss it as implausible for the reason you have presented is wrong,it's not as if they'd be planting explosives under office workers seats after all . Edited April 22, 2015 by Felix Lighter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 That's the point though, thousands of people going about their business are probably not going to take much notice of 'workmen' coming and going,the towers were quite old and more than likely high maintenance.If we were to speculate that it was an inside job and controlled explosions were used then those rigging the building aren't exactly going to advertise themselves,they'd have suitable ID's and proper clearance to be working in the building. Not that I'm saying that's what happened of course, I just think to dismiss it as implausible for the reason you have presented is wrong,it's not as if they'd be planting explosives under office workers seats after all . I'll dismiss on the grounds that its bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Lighter Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I'll dismiss on the grounds that its bullshit. Which part? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) All of this USA state mass murder of its own people. Edited April 22, 2015 by aussieh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Lighter Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) All of this USA state mass murder of its own people. Where did I say USA committed mass murder of it's own people? Regardless, whether any state would murder it's own people is moot. In regards to the post you referred to as bullshit.I merely pointed out my reasoning as to why I believe it's not implausible that the building could be covertly rigged. edit mongous Edited April 22, 2015 by Felix Lighter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 That's the point though, thousands of people going about their business are probably not going to take much notice of 'workmen' coming and going,the towers were quite old and more than likely high maintenance.If we were to speculate that it was an inside job and controlled explosions were used then those rigging the building aren't exactly going to advertise themselves,they'd have suitable ID's and proper clearance to be working in the building. Not that I'm saying that's what happened of course, I just think to dismiss it as implausible for the reason you have presented is wrong,it's not as if they'd be planting explosives under office workers seats after all . But then why bother flying planes in to the buildings? I don't know much about demolitions but I'd hazard a guess a passenger liner flying into the site you have primed isn't the best way to make sure everything is good and ready to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Lighter Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 But then why bother flying planes in to the buildings? I don't know much about demolitions but I'd hazard a guess a passenger liner flying into the site you have primed isn't the best way to make sure everything is good and ready to go. I would have thought the aircraft impacts would only have a detrimental effect on any explosives placed above the actual impact site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 What's the theory here? The yanks killed thousands if their own and toppled the towers to allow them to invade?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) DP Edited April 22, 2015 by Normthebarman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) Yup. Red flag I think it's called. They proposed something similar in the 60's but JFK told them to go **** themselves. I want to know more about the Satanists running the music industry. Edited April 22, 2015 by Normthebarman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Here we have the mind of a conspiracy theorist. A plane crashes in to the US headquarters of the Department of Defence but you can't watch the video so the only explanation is that it's to cover up a lie. Outside the fact 200 people died, do you imagine the US wants to hand out surveillance of one of its most important and secret laden buildings to satisfy your ghoulish urges? But, no. You see a lack of evidence as proof of anything you want. You tell people you have an open mind and are questioning authority when, in fact, you have an agenda and will ignore any possibility to the contrary. The 'national security' angle doesn't wash though does it.Anyone can have a wander around the Pentagon using Google Earth,and any video footage of an approaching aircraft would've been filmed by cameras facing out from the building anyway. With this you prove my point. I'm not saying i have the answers; i'm saying you'll happily dismiss anything that doesnt fit your solution and happily admit anything, no matter how spurious, if it supports what you want to be the conclusion. Hence the nature of your response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Yup. Red flag I think it's called. They proposed someone similar in the 60's but JFK told them to go **** themselves. I want to know more about the Satanists running the music industry. False flag. A red flag is either a general warning sign, or just good ol' fashioned socialism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 False flag. A red flag is either a general warning sign, or just good ol' fashioned socialism. That's the one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Here we have the mind of a conspiracy theorist. A plane crashes in to the US headquarters of the Department of Defence but you can't watch the video so the only explanation is that it's to cover up a lie. Outside the fact 200 people died, do you imagine the US wants to hand out surveillance of one of its most important and secret laden buildings to satisfy your ghoulish urges? But, no. You see a lack of evidence as proof of anything you want. You tell people you have an open mind and are questioning authority when, in fact, you have an agenda and will ignore any possibility to the contrary. They have released five stills from one video showing the grounds, the Pentagon, and the explosion but not what caused it. I find it strange that you did not take that into consideration when posting, or did you not know this. Ether way, you can take your uncalled for and desperate ghoulish urges jibe and eat it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Lighter Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 With this you prove my point. I'm not saying i have the answers; i'm saying you'll happily dismiss anything that doesnt fit your solution and happily admit anything, no matter how spurious, if it supports what you want to be the conclusion. Hence the nature of your response. No. Apart from the emboldened, your post is complete garbage.My reply to your post stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) They have released five stills from one video showing the grounds, the Pentagon, and the explosion but not what caused it. I find it strange that you did not take that into consideration when posting, or did you not know this. Ether way, you can take your uncalled for and desperate ghoulish urges jibe and eat it. Please don't find it strange. I find the details utterly boring. It's little more than your need to give your hollow existence meaning by entertaining the notion that you hold special knowledge. You don't, and you're lying to yourself. Edited April 22, 2015 by 2NaFish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 No. Apart from the emboldened, your post is complete garbage.My reply to your post stands. Debate the points rather that just dismissing them. C'mon, yours is an open mind open to questioning received authority, apparently. And yet as soon as someone highlights any possibility that you might have the whole thing back to front (evidence comes before conclusion) you crack. The sign of a fragile ego. The fact that you believe your non sequitur reply from earlier stands as anything worthwhile just shows how close-minded conspiracy theorists are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.