Conspiracy Movie - Page 3

On August 11 2008 14:38 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On August 08 2008 18:16 Baal wrote:   On August 08 2008 07:52 Jelle wrote: I feel the way me and the overwhelming majority of other people decide on wether something is factual or not is by comparing it to something else that they've learned before.. but that thing you've learned before could easily be a mistruth also for example about the 9/11 stuff one side argues that "there were explosions" and "this isn't how a tower would collapse because of a fire, it's a controlled demolition" while the other side says "there's no evidence of any explosions" and "the fire interacts with all the flammable office chairs, computers etc" how the hell am I supposed to know who is telling the truth? am i supposed to make enough money so I can rebuild the wtc and hire planes to fly into them and see what happens? Its common sense Jelle... Steel does NOT melt at the temperature jet fuel burns, yet you can see pictures of molten metal in ground zero, that is alone absolute proof of demolition, but an even bigger one is that the towers fell at nearly gravity acceleration, which is absolutely impossible to happen naturally unless all resistance in the lower floors are removed, a building collapsing naturally would never accelerate at such rate, also no buildling in the world has ever collapsed by a fire, buildings with lower building standards than the WTC that have burned for 100 times longer than the Twin towers did, how on earth are those not definite proof that it was a controlled demolition. I found this while clicking one of the links above,it's pretty thorough http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

ROFL are you seriously quoting the NIST as a rebuttal? you realize that is the most idiotic report ever witten in history right?....

When they answer the question "why did it fall nearly at free fall speed?" the pancake effect innertia was too great for the lower floors to stop its fall... LOL.

Thats like saying "i doubt santa claus exists" and they reply, No santa does exist... im sure of it ignoring all the fucking common sense in the world dictates its impossible for it to fall at that speed regarless of any inertia effect.

On August 11 2008 18:17 SKoT wrote: theyre obv saying the government flew the planes into the towers and then blew them up under the guise of a plane-induced demolition and then they go on to claim to know more about the sciences than the phDs in Metallurgical Engineering, etc

Are u dumb? you demolish 2 huge buildings and kill thousands to get the war machine going and you think they cant get a few PhDs to claim it was a legit terrorist attack? ROFL.


I can get you several PhDs in structural engeneering that claim it was a controlled demolition, actually i just saw a couple from japan talking about it.

For every PhD claiming that it was a controlled demolition, there are a hundred rebutting his arguments.

On August 12 2008 00:11 dongcopter wrote: For every PhD claiming that it was a controlled demolition, there are a hundred rebutting his arguments.

no that is not true and stop pulling facts out of your ass like a kid unless u can back it up some way.

also nice way to throw an absolutely retarded one liner withouth even reading the thread and totally ignoring the melted beam i just posted... USA FUCK YEAH!

So for the minimum of thousands of people that had to be "in on it", not ONE has come forward nor has any legitimate government evidence been leaked or anything. Yet this all-powerful super-controlling executive branch allows videos like loose change and zeitgeist to be on the internet? Also, why blow up two towers? Why hit the pentagon? Why crash a plane in the middle of fucking nowhere? We would have EASILY gone to war for one twin tower being knocked down. Would also mean less than half the people involved, less chance for people switching sides, etc.

Baal you're the one making the accusations, how about you show me some substantiated proof that I cant easily refute with HIGHLY regarded publications like Popular Mechanis, Scientific American, etc. Oh that's right, you wont trust anyone that disagrees with you because "the govt got to them". Just go bury your head in the sand with the rest of the conspiracy theorists.

the pancake effect innertia was too great for the lower floors to stop its fall... LOL.

Stop pulling facts out of your ass like a kid unless u can back it up some way.

On August 11 2008 23:48 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On August 11 2008 14:38 lebowski wrote:   On August 08 2008 18:16 Baal wrote:   On August 08 2008 07:52 Jelle wrote: I feel the way me and the overwhelming majority of other people decide on wether something is factual or not is by comparing it to something else that they've learned before.. but that thing you've learned before could easily be a mistruth also for example about the 9/11 stuff one side argues that "there were explosions" and "this isn't how a tower would collapse because of a fire, it's a controlled demolition" while the other side says "there's no evidence of any explosions" and "the fire interacts with all the flammable office chairs, computers etc" how the hell am I supposed to know who is telling the truth? am i supposed to make enough money so I can rebuild the wtc and hire planes to fly into them and see what happens? Its common sense Jelle... Steel does NOT melt at the temperature jet fuel burns, yet you can see pictures of molten metal in ground zero, that is alone absolute proof of demolition, but an even bigger one is that the towers fell at nearly gravity acceleration, which is absolutely impossible to happen naturally unless all resistance in the lower floors are removed, a building collapsing naturally would never accelerate at such rate, also no buildling in the world has ever collapsed by a fire, buildings with lower building standards than the WTC that have burned for 100 times longer than the Twin towers did, how on earth are those not definite proof that it was a controlled demolition. I found this while clicking one of the links above,it's pretty thorough http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm ROFL are you seriously quoting the NIST as a rebuttal? you realize that is the most idiotic report ever witten in history right?.... When they answer the question "why did it fall nearly at free fall speed?" the pancake effect innertia was too great for the lower floors to stop its fall... LOL. Thats like saying "i doubt santa claus exists" and they reply, No santa does exist... im sure of it ignoring all the fucking common sense in the world dictates its impossible for it to fall at that speed regarless of any inertia effect.

what I'm saying is that I'm not capable of questioning the answers NIST is giving because it's not my field, trying to see things differently is one thing but coming to premature conclusions is another.
It's not like they answer "no it wasn't a demolition",they give facts about melting steel etc that I'm sure you too aren't qualified to evaluate,so this is obviously not a matter of common sense as you said earlier

How fast did the towers exactly fall?

On August 12 2008 00:17 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2008 00:11 dongcopter wrote: For every PhD claiming that it was a controlled demolition, there are a hundred rebutting his arguments. no that is not true and stop pulling facts out of your ass like a kid unless u can back it up some way. also nice way to throw an absolutely retarded one liner withouth even reading the thread and totally ignoring the melted beam i just posted... USA FUCK YEAH!

Actually, I've already read the entire thread, so your personal attack failed pretty badly there. And even though my quote clearly wasn't meant to be taken literally, it has a lot more fact to it than the completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

explain the steel column i posted or get the fuck out

in case you missed it

On August 11 2008 14:38 lebowski wrote: I found this while clicking one of the links above,it's pretty thorough http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Was interesting to read some of that, thanks lebowski

It made me wonder if the bad guys were actually pretty lucky to cause as much damage as they did? I get the idea from the report that the towers were a big favourite but didn't hold.. I wonder if a scenario was possible where they fly a plane into a building but cause limited damage (no collapse) and if the world would have changed as much

oh god here we go again


why did bin laden and his organisation admit to be behind those attacks?

as for the steel column, how can u even prove it's from WTC?

I strongly belief there was use of explosives by demolition teams.
America not so evil= try to keep the area of destruction controlled and save lives.
America evil= To fill the peasants with hate and get a green light to scoop some oil.

My guess its somewhere in between.

On August 12 2008 05:41 SneakrFreakr wrote: why did bin laden and his organisation admit to be behind those attacks? as for the steel column, how can u even prove it's from WTC?

1.- Isnt it ridiculously obvious?, u get the chance to declare the biggest attack to "western infidels" as your creation, making your "movement" much stronger recruiting thousands thus become much more powerful... not many people knew Bin Laden before that... now i guarantee you he is 100 times stronger than he was before, so taking credit for those is the best thing he could have done, plus he had close ties with the CIA many years before its likely he was told to take credit before it even happened.


2.- because its a close-up from this picture




any more questions?

1- ok u convinced me

2- how can u prove the 2nd picture is from WTC as well? could've been taken during any controlled demolition. firefighters are always present during those

another question - how do u know that demolition wasn't executed by terrorists?

2.- because its a well known WTC picture, also the firefighter's numbers on the helmet proves they were firefighters in 9/11

extra - because the possibilities that they could have infiltrated so many demolition devices in the WTC withouth the government knowledge is nearly impossible, but even more important, even if they managed to do that, why would they need 2 planes to crash into them?.

----------

If a guy with a 10million dollar insurance dies falling from the stairs and her new wife is the beneficiary she become the main suspect because in every scenario you gotta keep thinking "ok who won the most in this situation"... think about it, George Bush approval rating skyrocketed, it got him re-elected, he passed unconstitutional laws (patriot act), he got the war machine going, inading Afghanistan, then randomly Iraq, and now they even considered Iran ffs, 9/11 is the best thing that happened to George Bush as a president.

If you think for a second that they give a shit about the life of a couple of thousand innocents above their multi billion profit then you my friend are gullible and you should study history harder.

So for all the thousands upon thousands of scientists in these field(s), not one of them saw that OUTRAGEOUS(as you claim) picture(well known picture you said) and decided to make it their mission to alert the world that it had to be a demolition?

Dont you think that if that picture provided indisputable proof that it was a demolition that the scientific community would be up in arms? Ive seen that picture on the news and shit before, and yet still no organization or reputable scientific body has made any attempt at claiming it was a demolition. I could easily think of one way that beam got sheared and then melted or looked like it melted. The building is falling at magnificent speeds and with tremendous force. As its approaching the ground, the mass of all the weights of the floor tilts a little for whatever reason about 5 stories off the ground. The beam in question is rooted probably 100ft into reinforced concrete and bolted into it, so the base isnt going anywhere. The mass of all the weight slightly tilting in that one area just pulls the beam apart at that angle and some burning insulation/etc falls on top of it and *slightly* melts the middle of the beam that hasnt had fire-treated, etc because the steel INSIDE the beam itself was never expected to actually have burning stuff on it.

Does that sound more outrageous than a giant thousands of people conspiracy to murder thousands of their countrymen/women just to get us "to get oil" and yet it doesnt seem like a huge priority for our administration to get the wells off the ground? hmm...

On August 12 2008 09:18 SKoT wrote: So for all the thousands upon thousands of scientists in these field(s), not one of them saw that OUTRAGEOUS(as you claim) picture(well known picture you said) and decided to make it their mission to alert the world that it had to be a demolition? Dont you think that if that picture provided indisputable proof that it was a demolition that the scientific community would be up in arms? Ive seen that picture on the news and shit before, and yet still no organization or reputable scientific body has made any attempt at claiming it was a demolition.

Again stop pulling stupid facts out of your ass unless you can back it up or i will have the need to bitch slap you with actual facts, god u make it too easy.

Many scientists believe its a demolition, there are hundreds of sites, videos and even movies devoted to spread the truth and you dont think people are "alerting the world"? are you insane thousands are trying to.

You say there is not a reputable scientific body that made an attempt to claim it was a demolition? If i show you even more than one scientific body claiming it was a demolition you will shut up and admitt it is a demolition or not?, because you are listing your reasons why you believe this, so if i prove them wrong you must aknowledge you were mistaken, otherwise you are just throwing random trash to justify your blind belief... so are you up to change ur mind if i debunk this false statement you just made?

I could easily think of one way that beam got sheared and then melted or looked like it melted. The building is falling at magnificent speeds and with tremendous force. As its approaching the ground, the mass of all the weights of the floor tilts a little for whatever reason about 5 stories off the ground. The beam in question is rooted probably 100ft into reinforced concrete and bolted into it, so the base isnt going anywhere. The mass of all the weight slightly tilting in that one area just pulls the beam apart at that angle and some burning insulation/etc falls on top of it and *slightly* melts the middle of the beam that hasnt had fire-treated, etc because the steel INSIDE the beam itself was never expected to actually have burning stuff on it. Does that sound more outrageous than a giant thousands of people conspiracy to murder thousands of their countrymen/women just to get us "to get oil" and yet it doesnt seem like a huge priority for our administration to get the wells off the ground? hmm..

Yes that theory is very very unlikely (breaking the column withouth bending it at a perfect angle with melted metal arround it), it is MUCH more reasonable to believe that column was cut.

However Skot its not about setting your mind because of 1 "very suspicious metal beam", its about the evidence as a whole, which the stupid report failed in an epic way to debunk, things like:

1.- "puffs" of debris flying out of windows from even 40 stories BELOW the collapsing building.

The report says it was compressed air breaking the window and sending stuff out of the window.

common sense says: The air being compressed would find a way out of the building much sooner than 40 mother fucking floors below, it would blow all the window in the floors right blow the collapsing buldings, not leaving them inact and blowing a random window ridiculously much more low.

2.- Actual flashbangs coming out of the windows, clear sign of detonations

The report didnt even adress those

3.- A substance looking like thermite (substance used to cut metal beams in demolitions) pouring out of the bulding in several spots

The reports says: Thermite is very unlikely for demolition, so WE DIDNT TEST FOR TERMITE RESIDUES

common sense says: You didnt fucking test a single beam for thermite? what? isnt that test like 25 bucks?

4.- A collapsing buildnig cannot fall at "free fall" speed

the report says: The momentum of the fall was too strong for the lower floors to put any resistance.

common sense says: wait... you dindt even fucking disprove what i just said, you just NEGATED what i said by saying YES IT CAN!!!.... which is ridiculous.

5.- There were found beams stuck in adjacent buildings with a force that a jet colliding or jet fuel explosión cannot generate.

the report doesnt adress that

6.- There are HUNDREDS of testimonies claiming that there were previous explosions

the report doesnt adress that

7.- The WTC building 7 didnt recieve an impact of a plane yet it was bought down in an alike implosion manner

the report says it fell from damage from the other towers falling

common sense says: what?, an adjacent huge building IMPLODED in a demolition fashion only because of flying debris from the other towers collapsing and minor fires? lol

8.- The Pentagon doesnt have any rests of a plane, the hole in the wall is not consistent witht he size of the fuselage of the boeing, there is no bodies, seats or even wings in the crash site.

the report says: YES it was a boeing we swear!

common sens says: omg, not even the most fanaticall gullible person will believe that was caused by a plane

9.- After the 9/11 incident George Bush approval ratio skyrocketed, it was a primary factor of his re-election, he went to two wars increasing the national debt with the central bank (which his familie has ties with), invaded iraq and there has been a huge chane in oil price because of this event and he established a base in the middle east.

blind people say: Muslims hate our freedom!!! we must fight for it and stop the terrorists who randomly hates us, and make women cover their face omg!

smart people say: George Bush obviously benefited from all this chain of events, thinking they just happened because evil people hate us is gullible.

On August 12 2008 09:18 SKoT wrote: Does that sound more outrageous than a giant thousands of people conspiracy to murder thousands of their countrymen/women just to get us "to get oil" and yet it doesnt seem like a huge priority for our administration to get the wells off the ground? hmm...

Yes it does mainly because you dont need thousands to pull this off, just hundreds which most of them are in high political, CIA and military rankings and obviously are by no means any liability or risk of information infiltration.

Second, you dont know history at all if you believe the leaders of empires give a shit about sacrificing a few country men to go to war for economical reasons, it happened in almost every single way int he world, even germany did it, hitler burnt his parlament claiming it was a terrorist attack and that they had to defend the nation....

actually even mother fucking Mexico did it in WW2, yes mexico joined the allies when two mexican ships were sunk in the mexican Gulf, politicians claimed it was a German submarine in mexican waters (LOL wtf) that sunk the "Faja de Oro" and the "Potrero de Llano".... that alone caried mexico to support the united states (with oil obv) and even send troops to fight in WW2 (yes we fought lol).

Amazingly people at the time actually believe a fucking germany submarine sunk our damn ships... gullible? yes... mirror mirror... oh and for the record that is how USA joined the WW1, evil germans sunk an american ship (killing thousands of civilians), mmm... dejavu.