Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
RIOLIUSTAR said:
Yep just sticking to the evidence friend.

After 6+ years in this thread...My nutter shield has barely a scratch ;)
Click to expand...
Serious question. What would it take for you to be convinced? A wikileak? Russia coming out with evidence? A new commission that ends up suggesting an inside job was "plausible" without downright saying so?
 
GG said:
Serious question. What would it take for you to be convinced? A wikileak? Russia coming out with evidence? A new commission that ends up suggesting an inside job was "plausible" without downright saying so?
Click to expand...
Simply facts would be enough.

So far, I haven't seen anything that is remotely convincing .

I'm still waiting :(

Strangely enough on a side note, I flat out believe Global warming/climate change is a complete farce...does that help :)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

RIOLIUSTAR said:
Simply facts would be enough.

So far, I haven't seen anything that is remotely convincing .

I'm still waiting :(

Strangely enough on a side note, I flat out believe Global warming/climate change is a complete farce...does that help :)
Click to expand...
Are there any actual facts tho in that global warming debate? It's the exact same thing....where there's a lot of evidence provided by both sides. So you're being a hypocrite. Demanding nth degree for one topic, but happy to take your global warming stance with disputable evidence.

But in regards to FACTS....sometimes the facts that prove 9/11 was an inside job are NOT related to the actual buildings collapsing, etc. But to other aspects of the story....like Silverman upping the insurance weeks before, adding in a clause for acts of terror....or better....that dossier i posted once, a few years ago, which NAMED the people involved in the 9/11 conspiracy in the financial sense, the fraud cases, stockmarket dealings days before the event.....and how certain people related/connected to informed people were all told to stay away that morning.....there are those kinds of FACTS.

Also....the FACT that 6 of the 8 terrorists who apparently hijacked those planes....were and are still alive.
 
GG said:
Are there any actual facts tho in that global warming debate? It's the exact same thing....where there's a lot of evidence provided by both sides. So you're being a hypocrite. Demanding nth degree for one topic, but happy to take your global warming stance with disputable evidence.

But in regards to FACTS....sometimes the facts that prove 9/11 was an inside job are NOT related to the actual buildings collapsing, etc. But to other aspects of the story....like Silverman upping the insurance weeks before, adding in a clause for acts of terror....or better....that dossier i posted once, a few years ago, which NAMED the people involved in the 9/11 conspiracy in the financial sense, the fraud cases, stockmarket dealings days before the event.....and how certain people related/connected to informed people were all told to stay away that morning.....there are those kinds of FACTS.

Also....the FACT that 6 of the 8 terrorists who apparently hijacked those planes....were and are still alive.
Click to expand...
Calm down friend, you haven't been this worked up since Geelong was relevant :p
 
RIOLIUSTAR said:
Simply facts would be enough.

So far, I haven't seen anything that is remotely convincing .

I'm still waiting :(

Strangely enough on a side note, I flat out believe Global warming/climate change is a complete farce...does that help :)
Click to expand...
Isn't the fact that the 9/11 commissioners complaining that they were stonewalled, underfunded, lied to, not given all the information, etc not enough for you to at least be suspicious?
 
Thrawn said:
Isn't the fact that the 9/11 commissioners complaining that they were stonewalled, underfunded, lied to, not given all the information, etc not enough for you to at least be suspicious?
Click to expand...
That's a bit rich from someone who won't acknowledge that AA wreckage was retrieved from the Pentagon :$

Yes it's a fact that the Commission was annoyed with bungling bureaucrats...I'm not sure this ground breaking however, unless you're getting desperate now ;)



 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RIOLIUSTAR said:
Yes it's a fact that the Commission was annoyed with bungling bureaucrats...I'm not sure this ground breaking however, unless you're getting desperate now ;)
Click to expand...
More than just "bumbling bureaucrats". They were actually considering pressing criminal charges to Pentagon officials for lying. The CIA stonewalled them. the Whitehouse didn't give them more than half the requested documents. Bush and Cheney went together behind closed doors, off the record, and not under oath when asked to testify to the commission. They even were going to appoint Henry Kissinger to head the commission initially. After hundreds of days delaying.

It screams "cover up", and you're regarding it as some kind of bureaucratic bungle?

I'm not sure why you're treating it as trivially as you are. But at least you can see why people are very sceptical over the whole thing if you don't divulge into all the different kinds of theories out there.
 
Last edited:
RIOLIUSTAR said:
Of course it does friend :rolleyes: :$
Click to expand...
Well, yeah.

It actually does.

People don't lie under oath, or stonewall investigations unless they have something to hide. If you want a more favourable analogy, just think about how Essendon have been trying very hard not to get the truth out. ;)
 
More stuff about the commissioner's misgivings here.

Don't take my word for it though, you can use your roll eye and embarrassed smileys at Max Cleland if you'd like:


Still not suspicious? From this information alone I can confidently say there was some kind of cover up. But of what, I am not entirely sure. Gross, unlawful incompetence? Did the Bush administration let the attacks happen? Or something far more sinister?

Oh no, wait, it was just bureaucratic bumbling. Right. You can believe that if you'd like. :)
 
cheapchippy said:
Isn't there a teensy weensy little bit of suspicion around the speed at which WTC 7 fell?
If there isn't you must be yet another sheep who didn't realise WTC 7 did fall.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on what you read, and god forbid watch (say doctored youtube vids for example).

When you read what the experts say there's explanations.

Lets take the FREE FALL example for instance.

Experts say "yes the building fell at free fall speed" for roughly 1.2 secs from memory
This causes an uproar on nutters.com and they run with that quote and it's nah nah nah to anything else said.

The experts go on the explain that in fact over all the collapse was 40% slower than freefall speed in the overall collapse.

So in answer to your post...No not really.

I must admit though the "productions" can be persuasive if you're not willing to open both eyes.

I'll dig up some papers written by the experts for you if you'd interested ;)
 
RIOLIUSTAR said:
I guess it depends on what you read, and god forbid watch (say doctored youtube vids for example).

When you read what the experts say there's explanations.

Lets take the FREE FALL example for instance.

Experts say "yes the building fell at free fall speed" for roughly 1.2 secs from memory
This causes an uproar on nutters.com and they run with that quote and it's nah nah nah to anything else said.

The experts go on the explain that in fact over all the collapse was 40% slower than freefall speed in the overall collapse.

So in answer to your post...No not really.

I must admit though the "productions" can be persuasive if you're not willing to open both eyes.

I'll dig up some papers written by the experts for you if you'd interested ;)
Click to expand...
Are the papers by NIST?
 
RIOLIUSTAR said:
Nope
Click to expand...
Maybe Popular Mechanics? Even if it were a University or an otherwise accepted and reputable academic institution, the problem is one of a failure to understand how corruption operates. In this, the information age, to argue that 9/11 involved a massive cover-up is to argue that there are aspects of corruption that have infiltrated the academic world.

This is what makes it so very hard for individuals to actually make sense of the world, or in this case, know exactly what happened on 9/11, who did it, how it was accomplished, and why.

No one should argue that every single thing you see on mainstream news is false or inaccurate, rather they should argue that such channels cannot be relied upon to either supply all of the facts or to not peddle untruths.

You shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater of course, and likewise with science, medicine, and other academic industries. I argue for a level of scepticism to be applied to all sources of information, and for individuals to piece together what they feel is the most accurate picture of the events and other aspects of the world that shape our perception of reality. Unfortunately, this is not apparent in the broader community.

I have as much disrespect (possibly more from an intellectual perspective) for people who denounce all mainstream media while avidly and uncritically accepting and following people like Alex Jones, for example.

What I don't get about you, RIOLIUSTAR is that you believe that anthropogenic global warming (or climate change as they changed it to in order to hide their red faces when they realised that the world has not recently been warming per se) is being falsely peddled out by the scientific community, with their massive "consensus", but you seem unable or unwilling to accept that there are most likely false or misleading scientific journal articles on the matter of 9/11.

And there is no massive red flag waving about in people's faces in the climate change debate, unlike with 9/11 (the collapse of WTC7). I guess what I am saying is, you fascinate me and indeed you have opposite views on both of these issues to a mate of mine (he is as convinced that we are causing climate change as he is that 9/11 was a massive "inside job"/cover-up).

I just want to understand how you believe corruption operates in this world and how this has helped you to formulate your specific conclusions about both 9/11 and anthropogenic climate change.
 
Last edited:
Firstly in reply luapjb I'd like to say great post :thumbsu:

Fundamentally, I believe corruption operates and is driven by the incessant need for money, power and ultimately control. You have to look no further than banks, governments, big corporations etc. etc. and I'm sure you're well aware of this already.
In regards to your comment on how this has helped me formulate my opinions on 9/11 and AGW, it hasn't really in the sense that the notion of corruption is the driving factor to my conclusions. This may seem odd or even contradictory. I'm not suggesting the US government and the faceless men behind the scenes aren't corrupt. I just don't believe because they are, then they must be behind the events of 9/11.

My view is that 9/11 was a massive cockup by the US intelligence services and government through fundamental flaws in their systems, ineptness, and arrogance, not because they wanted to kill innocent people for greater control and power. I'm not suggesting everything about the investigation was done correctly nor openly at times, but you have to distinguish between what is a bureaucratic cockup/face saving and complete crap peddled by CT's. If you look at the weight of information and facts out there in regards to every aspect of the events on 9/11, it's impossible to come to any other conclusion imho. I'm happy to go through each aspect of the day individually with you and answer any questions you have on why I think the way I do.

In regards to AGW you mention no red flags waving in your face. I suggest going and having a read on "climate gate". Now this isn't some misinterpretation or fabrication of facts like say the "pull it" comment with WTC 7, this is an actual fact that the heads running the UN IPCC were/are mercilessly corrupt, it's written in stone, they were caught with their pants down.
If that's not a red flag well I'm not sure what is.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you look the information critically in both cases, compare what the sides are saying and try not to let bias cloud a view you get to a point that your opinion is formed. In saying that, I'm happy to change my opinion though to do this I'd need to be convinced by seeing some new evidence. For example if it was revealed tomorrow, there was an email exchange between G.W Bush and Cheney like the blatant one with the IPCC scientists I'd be very happy to look into admitting I was wrong.

Look forward to chatting some more :thumbsu:
 
GG said:
He's the only dissenting voice left. All the others from years ago have given up, left, AND deep down secretly self-acknowledged believers in the CT now, but too ashamed/afraid to admit it to us who fought with them tooth-and-nail. The only person left posting the "dissenting voice" is RIOLUSTAR and he's here just to naysay "yeah nah, sorry, read NIST, are you an engineer, etc"
Click to expand...

When the same tired bullshit is dragged out time and time again people tend to just give up.
back in the first thread the free fall speed crap was exposed as bullshit, yet here it was trotted out again just a few days ago.
none of the towers fell at free speed.

You don't understand the term free fall, you don't understand the physics involved and yet after being schooled time and time again, you still repeat the same lies. there's some genuine questions to be asked regarding 9/11 problem is they get muzzled over the symphony of youtube "experts" and crazy nutters like alex jones.

Perhaps if the truther movement was mature enough to admit they've made mistakes and do away with patently false allegations then maybe there would be room for actual dialogue.

i mean if you can't even be man enough to admit we don't know how long exactly the buildings fell and we're all working on best estimates based on physics. all of which rule out the very possibility of free fall speed being a factor. What possible hope can there be of a constructive conversation?

sad RIOLIUSTAR hasn't realised he's talking to people willing to repeatedly resort to what is now clearly exposed as bullshit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top