I hate conspiracy theories

Post Reply New Topic

How come a airplane can't crash into a skyscraper, it don't make sense to me. A jumbo jet can fly that low it need to do it with sufficient accuracy to able to land. What court!? Must not have been a official court.


I don't know what are your sources, but I never heard about a 2.3 trillions dollars hole in Pentagon budget; not like it's something easily missing by the way. Also, how come you can't fly a airplane (A drone is a telecommanded airplane.) in a skyscraper but you can in the Pentagon?


2001 special effects were not good enough to fake heavy smoke convincely, even on video of VHS quality. You also seem to forget there were thousand of witness; were they part of the conspiracy too!?

You will need something better than that.

The "Active Thermitic Material..." research paper mentions a secondary finding; that of the iron-rich spheres. Does the burning or ignition of drywall create these spheres?

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... -like.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/ther ... e_analysis

I personally like conspiracy theories...
Although I do get annoyed by many people who cling to the most extravagant, useless, and most provably wrong theories. I mean, we get such great things as X-Files from conspiracy theories...

And sometimes the theories come out to be true, like MKUltra.
Although, I would note that the ones that do turn out to be true tend to have been obscure.
I think it's worth considering the theories and making rational judgements about them while being skeptical.

For example, if you were to tell me that the U.S. Government uses children who are wards of the state, and even kidnaps children for unethical and/or illegal medical experimentation, I would accept that as a valid theory because there is historical precedent for that. I would then press for evidence for it.
If you were to tell me that the Government is run by alien reptiles, I would dismiss on the account that it's crazy and lacks real evidence.

Seem like this is not a evidence either.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.2523/
Occam's razor applied to 9/11 tell us that we should trust the official story, as it's the simplest explanation.

I don't agree. It is one of the more complex and convoluted explanations, especially in terms of the number of people required to be "in on" the conspiracy. As well as failing to explain several things.

then why did it happen

Planes were actually seen, on film, crashing into the WTC towers.

As for the Lincoln assassination, it's been pretty well proven, in mainstream circles, that there were quite a few conspirators out to kill at least three people at the same time as Lincoln

How did Oswald get the job at the book depository a few weeks before the motorcade route was announced?

Why did 2 of the bullets he fired have different behaviour?

The first bullet went through about 5 or 6 body parts and wasnt badly damaged.
This is the behaviour of a full metal jacket round.

The third bullet hit kennedy in the head and shattered, this is the behaviour of a hollow-point round.

One could walk into anywhere and get a job in 1963--or in 1980, for that matter. No resumes were required. All one had to do was fill out an application. Many people were hired on the same day.

No doubt about that

Yes. I agree that very real airplanes flew into the very real World Trade Center twin towers.

But..., a very similar idea had its origins within the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962 when its Chairman Lyman L. Lemnitzer signed documents known as Operation Northwoods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods which described and authorized of a series of proposals for action against the Cuban government, and sent the documents to U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara who presented the plan to President Kennedy who rejected the idea personally.

Specifically, Operation Northwoods proposed “[a] series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.” The description of these incidents included the idea about how:


So, the idea of a false-flag attack on the United States “to give genuine appearance of being done” by a hostile group or nation which would have included a “converted” “drone aircraft” which was “painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft[,]” the “destruction” of which would be “triggered by radio signal[,]” “to ‘sell’ the” pretext to the American public was all state-of-the-art military technology in 1962.

What should be terrifying for every American is that, in 1962, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff had the technology and apparent willingness to do such a thing but for the action of one man who actually saw combat and knew of its evil. Can we so easily dismiss the idea that their successors had the same compulsion to provoke our nation’s longest war over a faked provocation two generations later?

Is it beyond possibility that the idea was dusted off years later by those (including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz who were members of the Project for the New American Century which claimed in its September 2000 report titled Rebuilding America's Defenses that “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor”) who might have seen an advantage to “sell” the American public on a slightly different “enemy” especially at a time when the end of the Cold War had stalled corporate earnings for the otherwise robust “military industrial complex” about which President Eisenhower had warned us?

I guess the above scenario is theoretically possible--though I don't believe likely. I believe the concept of Islamic terrorism, in conjunction with our dependence on Middle East Oil, would have been sufficient to create a "new enemy." Nowadays, of course, Russia is seeking to become Soviet again, at least somewhat.

In truth, with all this technology at our disposal, ANYTHING is possible.

Hehe. Yes, it has. That was my point. We can agree that conspiracies exist beyond the semantics involved. Now, are the various theories about any given conspiracy valid? Maybe, maybe not. But, let's not castigate all explanations of conspiratorial crimes as bat-crap crazy. Instead, shouldn't we examine the evidence of any given explanation?

After all, the explanation proposed by the prosecuting attorneys in the Lincoln Assassination was only a "conspiracy theory" until a judge agreed with it; only then did it became legal fact.

Not all commentators in this topic have resorted to semantic tricks and insults, but enough have done so to warrant sharing the Lincoln example.