What is wrong with the conspiracy theorists?
Even a relatively straightforward story like the Boston bombings must be understood as an elaborately orchestrated government plot.
It's seeping into mainstream Republicanism. Lindsay Graham is saying Obama orchestrated the inadequate investigation of the older bomber by the FBI and CIA before the election because uncovering the plot would have been politically damaging. Similar allegations are made about Bengazi
Clearly, they crave a sense of order and cannot abide the idea of small actors creating big events. Instead it must be part of some powerful force's secret plan.
They also seem to be intellectually insecure and enjoy the idea that they are smarter than everyone else. They are especially fond of calling their critics blind, stupid and brainwashed.
They have an almost religious faith. They are impervious to argument, reason or evidence. Anything inconsistent with their plot theory is dismissed as more of the coverup.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||04/26/2013|
Agree with pretty much everything you wrote OP.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||04/25/2013|
And yet, according to them, NOTHING about 9/11/01 was a rightwing conspiracy, even though Cheney's Halliburton made billions from its aftermath.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||04/25/2013|
OP go back to watching CNN!
|by Anonymous||reply 4||04/25/2013|
They're mentally ill but in the way of paranoia. Usually schizophrenic leanings. Schizoid, schizo-typical. It's not just a personality disorder. The illness can just be depression with psychotic tendencies. It is important to recognize their illness or you may waste valuable time arguing with them.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||04/25/2013|
I don't understand why it has gone mainstream in such a short period of time. I was around for the Clinton presidency, so I KNOW that he and Hilary were hated as much or more than Obama.
And you look up the google trends for the last 10 years, this "false flag" bullshit only started recently. I just don't get it, why people have gone so far off the rails so suddenly.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||04/25/2013|
9-11 happened r6. Then came Iraq and the lies about WMD and then the The Patriot Act. I think it was the perfect storm.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||04/25/2013|
I think it's the new Republican strategy in the face of the 2012 defeat.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||04/25/2013|
R2 That's really not true. 9/11 "Truthers" were what made the movement so big in the first place.
These people are nearly always losers who have nothing going on with their lives, so they create a ridiculous fantasy world where EVERYTHING is a conspiracy.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||04/25/2013|
It's an effort by OP and others to discredit true conspiracies (such as 9/11 being a hardly hidden inside job) by pretending everything the other side does is a conspiracy. An ancient tactic, and only effective on the weak minded.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||04/25/2013|
The speed of the development of conspiracy theories is due to the social media and internet.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||04/25/2013|
[quote]It's an effort by OP and others to discredit true conspiracies (such as 9/11 being a hardly hidden inside job) by pretending everything the other side does is a conspiracy. An ancient tactic, and only effective on the weak minded.
Actually, I am extremely skeptical of all conspiracy theories because they would have been impossible to pull off. The number of evil people necessary for your 9/11 fantasy is absurd and the idea that so many people could keep quiet about such an important event is beyond absurd.
Just curious, R11. What is my motive for the "tactic" of discrediting the real conspiracies. (This ought to be good.)
|by Anonymous||reply 14||04/25/2013|
The main problem is there aren't enough of them. Most of what happens in the world is the result of a conspiracy.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||04/25/2013|
r7 That doesn't make any sense either. This mainstream conspiracy stuff has only blown up within the last year. The far left mental csaes were the ones with the 9/11 conspiracies, and even that shit never took hold the way the right wing ones have.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||04/25/2013|
Scream all you want R16, the fact is that our nation was defenseless on 9.11 and that could only be by design.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||04/25/2013|
R17, I work for a federal agency and you have no idea how fucked up things are. There is little communication, and offices where local or regional managers run their own little fiefdoms. Employees show up and try their best to help the public, but they do so despite the disorganization and power plays. Before 9/11 the FBI at some level did not pass along concerns by its local agents that middle easterners were taking flying lessons and didn't want to learn how to land. That's no conspiracy, that is plain mismanagement and incompetence. Now, we discover the the CIA wanted the older brother put on a watch list and the FBI didn't do it. And they have all kinds of excuses for why they didn't even know he'd gone to Russia. Conspiracy requires a lot more planning.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||04/25/2013|
DL should ban you r17. I'm so fucking sick of this crap.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||04/25/2013|
The Liberal tinhats think Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks to take away their freedom and liberties. The Conservative tinhats think Obama orchestrated the recent school shootings and the Boston bombing to take away their guns and their rights. Jeez, Louise. All of these theorists are buffoons!
|by Anonymous||reply 20||04/25/2013|
I want one of you to explain in your own words how NIST's theory of a "New Phenomenon" of Thermal Expansion caused WTC7 to fall neatly into its own footprint in less than ten seconds without the use of explosives.
If you can make a scientifically unimpeachable case for how a 47-story building made of cross-braced steel and concrete can fail universally and come down symmetrically at virtual free-fall speed after sustaining asymmetrical damage from falling debris hitting only one corner of the four-cornered building, then and only then will you have the right to complain about "conspiracy theorists."
|by Anonymous||reply 21||04/25/2013|
I have one friend who's deluded like R21 is. There's always SOMETHING "fishy" about any sort of terrorist attack to him. In the case of the Boston bombing it's the presence of the Craft International people at the marathon and the whereabouts of the younger brother during the day last week on Friday, before he surfaced in the boat. Although I've patiently tried to tell him the kid was probably in the boat all day, he still thinks "something is up."
That said, he doesn't believe 9/11 was a conspiracy, unlike the tinhat at R21.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||04/25/2013|
[quote]This mainstream conspiracy stuff has only blown up within the last year.
Haha, ever heard of the Kennedy assassination? It is the mother of all conspiracy theories, some of them believed by otherwise intelligent and respectable people.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||04/25/2013|
You aren't keeping up R22. Glenn Beck has been preaching a conspiracy theory that an unnamed Saudi was behind it all, and the Obama administration is covering that up because our government always defers to Saudi Arabia.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||04/25/2013|
Beck says he has internal government documents proving his conspiracy.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||04/25/2013|
Answer my question, R22, how did WTC 7 collapse in the precise manner of a controlled demolition without being a controlled demolition?
I can call people names too but I thought a discussion about physical science would be more meaningful.
"Trust Your Eyes, The Facts, and the Laws of Physics"
|by Anonymous||reply 26||04/25/2013|
R26, I have no fucking idea, but it's still more sane than your ridiculous fucking conspiracy theory.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||04/25/2013|
R18 it has been routine for fifty years for the government to intercept unknown aircraft, capabilities which were greatly enhanced with the war on drugs. But we were told they couldn't scramble ANY planes on 9.11 and there were only 6 potentially available despite 30,000 piilots, 15,000 aircraft, and a general fact that at any given hour of the day or night, dozens of military aircraft are already in the air not needing to be scrambled.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||04/25/2013|
No, R27, it is not ridiculous. Controlled demolitions don't happen spontaneously. If a skyscraper collapses symmetrically at freefall speed, it had to have been made to do so deliberately with well-placed, perfectly timed explosives. Any other explanation is ridiculous.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||04/25/2013|
It may has something to do with the governments credibility. I'm pretty sure the country with lots of conspiracy theorists has the least trustworthy government.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||04/25/2013|
R27, your willingness to believe the absurd official explanation of the collapse of WTC 7 makes you a "religious/superstitious" thinker rather than a "rational/scientific" thinker.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||04/25/2013|
Nutbag Glenn Beck, like all reichwing sociopaths, regurgitates leftwing memes to his own use.
See, THIS makes sense:
"an unnamed Saudi was behind it all, and the BUSH administration is covering that up because our government always defers to Saudi Arabia. "
|by Anonymous||reply 32||04/25/2013|
Actually, I believe people who don't believe in conspiracies are the crazy ones.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||04/25/2013|
It did not "collapse in the precise manner of a controlled demolition." People have a misconception that buildings collapse other than straight down. They don't. Gravity takes them straight down.
The question has been answered, of course. But as I said, the conspiracy theorists simply dismiss the scientists conclusions as another part of the conspiracy. Then they prattle on with "How come no one has ever explained . . ."
|by Anonymous||reply 34||04/25/2013|
r23 Yes, I have heard of it. We are not all 22 years old, just discovering the world. That's HOW I know that the explosion of conspiracy theorists into the mainstream has changed in the last two years.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||04/25/2013|
R32, it's a proved fact that Bush met with Prince Bandar (and no attending security) in the White House less than 48 hours after 9.11.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||04/25/2013|
Nobody has explained it, and the Popular Mechanics nonsense was so far from explaining anything that it made the situation even more obvious.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||04/25/2013|
They are completely unfamiliar with the concept od Occam's Razor.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||04/25/2013|
On the contrary. Occam's razor on 9/11 favors an inside job, which could be done with dozens of people; rather than with hundreds in contact with thousands of an alien culture as with the official story.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||04/25/2013|
That said of course Occam's Razor is not a real "concept" but a stupid thing like "Murphy's Law."
|by Anonymous||reply 40||04/25/2013|
Typical of how psy-ops works. He takes one situation where there is no conspiracy, and uses it to bolster his claim to no conspiracy on 9.11, when there clearly was. And what do they tell us? Oh there were no planes available to intercept, or only 6 planes; and it is more reasonable to presume that dozens of foreign terrorists, paid outside the banking system, were able to sustain themselves in an alien culture for years, coming into contact with thousands of people, to carry out the attack...but implausible that a few dozen special ops people could have done it. And all because a nameless friend of his SAW THE PLANE (diving at 500 mph) just before it hit the Pentagon! The same plane which appears on no video ever. And a friend lost a friend who was a pilot...evidence he certainly would not credit from a conspiracist.
It's just crazy how they think they can get away with this, that they can pile on the "zeitgeist" of any working police action to cast doubt on all the crimes of the past. I suppose he thinks Tonkin Gulf was a real attack on America's military! That the Spanish bombed the U.S.S. Maine! That Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of WMD!
He isn't making arguments, he's engaged in what amounts to an "aesthetic" argument. He likes how it makes him feel that the government protected him from the Boston bomber, therefore the government never lies!
|by Anonymous||reply 42||04/25/2013|
[quote] Goggle him, idiots
|by Anonymous||reply 44||04/25/2013|
The answer which explains the truth of an event is usually the most simple obvious one.
Of course that was paraphrased, so don't go all quotey on me. If you feel 9-11 was an inside job, I don't think you grasp the meaning of Occam's Razor. Stop tuning in to Alex Jones and let your melon breathe. Illuminati much?
|by Anonymous||reply 45||04/25/2013|
At least I spelled his name right!
|by Anonymous||reply 46||04/25/2013|
GET A LOAD OF THIS ONE!
[quote]“If you go on my website right now, michellemalkin.com, I talk more about the first president of the mosque that the bombers attended, Abdurahman Alamoudi, who has ties to the GOP — and in particular Grover Norquist — that a lot of people in the establishment had never, never condemned,” Malkin added. “If this had been a liberal who was tied to it, everybody on the right would be screaming about it. So both parties, both establishments are guilty of not speaking up enough and not doing enough to stop these people.”
[quote]On her website, Malkin claimed that Norquist had worked with Alamoudi to create the Islamic Free Market Institute. She also alleged that Norquist helped Alamoudi obtain access to the White House.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||04/25/2013|
i once saw on book tv on cspan many years ago, an author said the navy subs can emit some kind of sound wave or whatever they are called and buildings that are damaged or weak can collapse. That was his view, i can't remember his name or his book but that stuck in my mind for over a decade.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||04/25/2013|
Michelle Malkin is such a nutbag that O'Reilly openly banned her from his show permanently. Kinda like Glenn Beck. I am a staunch MSNBC viewer during the day and in prime time. So please know that I am progressive to the nth degree. BUT, I do watch O'Reilly on his 4 AM replay, because I want to hear what a somewhat reasonable Righty views of the day's news are. And for those DL'ers who eschew FNC on principle alone, I get it. But if you think O'Reilly is even in the same ballpark as Hannity and crew, you are way off. He has taken TONS of crap hurled his way by the Fundies over his PRO marriage equality stance that the Bible should not be a source of Constitutional decision making. Now, if you don't like him because he is a pompous blowhard....can't argue with that.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||04/25/2013|
[quote]People have a misconception that buildings collapse other than straight down. They don't. Gravity takes them straight down.
Gravity does not take things straight down at freefall speed through the path of MOST resistance!
The roof of WTC 7 traveled through 47 stories of steel and concrete as quickly as if all that steel and concrete were THIN AIR. Gravity did not do that.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||04/25/2013|
Explain the Denver airport, OP!
|by Anonymous||reply 52||04/25/2013|
Conspiracy theorists have been out in force since Kennedy's assassination. It hasn't just started.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||04/25/2013|
Actually OP, it's not that hard. NORAD was told to stand down that morning, that it was a practice drill. All the hawks in the WH had to do was allow it to happen. The collapse of WTC7 was never explained. There's a depth to the sceptism. And the most telling: why a war in Iraq, of all things? These people were arrogant enough to think they could reshape the Middle East.
It's the lack of curiosity and inquiry of people like you that allows these things to happen. And while you're accusing conspiracy theorists of arrogance you should probably look in the mirror. Some things should be questioned. There are degrees here.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||04/26/2013|
At the very least the Bush White House allowed 9/11 to happen. It deliberately ignored the warnings it received from the CIA. That may not lend credence to an actual conspiracy theory, but it certainly raises ugly questions.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||04/26/2013|
personality disorders? I'm not a shrink, so I can't diagnose; however, I've seen people who seem functional who will not let go of their "theories."* I have little patience for people who cling to improbable scenarios even after they've been presented with evidence that discounts their theory.*
Yes, I know conspiracies exist. I've prosecuted them in real life. However, as a former government employee I have real-life experience with how hard it is to get anything done within a bureaucracy.
* Did no conspiracy theorist ever study the scientific method in school? Hypotheses must be tested against evidence. Clinging to a hypothesis that can be debunked easily is what gets a person labeled a conspiracy theorist.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||04/26/2013|
R57, you're assuming the shambolic nature of gov't couldn't be used to one's advantage.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||04/26/2013|
WHY THE HATE IN THIS THREAD? NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE WHAT GOVERNMENTS DO, NOW DO WE?
|by Anonymous||reply 59||04/26/2013|
[quote]Nobody has explained it, and the Popular Mechanics nonsense was so far from explaining anything that it made the situation even more obvious.
Popular Mechanics is reporting on the conclusions of National Institute of Standards and Technology's Engineering Laboratory's specialists. Part of their mission is examining structural failures and the effects on fires on buildings. Scientists at NIST have won four Nobel Prizes. Dismissing their conclusions with a flick of the wrist as "nonsense" shows you are deranged, not serious.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||04/26/2013|
There is no point in discussing conspiracy theories with conspiracy theorists. They don't hear you. Despite the multiple eye-witnesses and video evidence, the 9/11 Truthers still say inanities like "a missile hit the Pentagon."
There is no point.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||04/26/2013|
They said that the Boston bomber that was killed was a fan of that "Prison Planet/Infowars" guy.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||04/26/2013|
I think there are some things that are genuinely suspicious like the JFK assassination and the David Kelly suicide, and even the DC madam suicide.
Then there are things that are obviously not a suicide - the school shooting in Conn, and the Boston bombing. And there were nuts saying these things were a conspiracy right away. I think there are people pushing an agenda that want to claim things are a conspiracy.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||04/26/2013|
[quote]I think there are people pushing an agenda that want to claim things are a conspiracy.
No doubt. But I think most of them are just in the grip of deep-seated emotional needs that distort their ability to reason.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||04/26/2013|
If the govt orchestrated 9-11 to get us into a war, why the overkill with so many different planes and locations targeted? Wouldn't one of the twin towers have been sufficient? Why was it so important for WTC 7 to collapse? People are nuts. They like to call government incompetent, but then believe that government can pull off the most sophisticated conspiracies involving dozens if not hundreds of people.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||04/26/2013|
Shock and Awe, R66. overkill to frighten the public into accepting the Patriot Act.
Both towers had to come down anyway because they were filled with asbestos. Demolishing them while occupied got rid of two huge old buildings that no one wanted while providing a pretext for a "War on Terror." Plus, it put six billion dollars in Larry Silverstein's pockets (after he put up a mere $200 million to acquire control of the complex from the Port Authority of NY just six weeks earlier.) Letting the building fall into private hands permitted the privacy required for teams to enter the buildings and work round the clock for weeks wiring them for demolition.
WTC 7 had to come down because it housed a lot of evidence against Enron and WorldComm and because Giuliani's "emergency bunker" was used as the command center for the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers.
It wasn't "the government" that pulled off 9/11. It was a shadowy cabal involving people within our government and the governments of other nations and other people as well that executed 9/11. They didn't do THAT good a job of it because they left trails of evidence pointing toward their involvement. They trust on having the full cooperation of the Media here and abroad to sell their lies and cover stories into perpetuity.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||04/26/2013|
The "hijackers" went well out of their way to avoid flying their plane into the White House or the Capitol (on a morning when Congress was in session) and to avoid hitting the wing of the Pentagon where the Top Brass work. They flew a ridiculously complicated maneuver (supposedly) for the express purpose of hitting the accounting department of the Pentagon. A day previous, Rumsfeld held a press conference announcing that the Pentagon had "lost" $2.3 TRILLION. Nothing was ever heard of that lost money again in the wake of 9/11.
Flight 93 was the "back-up" plane. Both Towers were wired to come down and the Pentagon had to NOT account for $2.3 trillion. Those three targets HAD to be hit. Once all three were successfully struck, the FBI sent out word that Camp David had been hit by Flight 93. This was the pretext for keeping the President OUT of Washington DC. (W. Bush was not a prime player in the drama. How could he be? He was too unpredictably stupid to trust with anything important.) Once it was assured that Bush could not return to the Capital, Flight 93 was ditched - although not likely in Shanksville PA where the so-called crash scene was curiously devoid of any sign of a downed airplane full of luggage and dozens of dead bodies.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||04/26/2013|
What's wrong with asking questions?
|by Anonymous||reply 69||04/26/2013|
Rumsfeld said most of that money was evenutally accounted for R68.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||04/26/2013|
Bush was definitely in on it. He was in Florida where his brother had a martial law plan in case the thing blew up in his face. He couldn't come back to Washington until it was certain Congress and the military bought into it.
The SEC also had evidence against BUSH in WTC7.
R62, why can't you accept that the government deliberately lies and it's not a rare occurrence. The fact is that it doesn't matter how honest and above board most people are if the folks at the top are psychopaths, and they are as often as not!
|by Anonymous||reply 71||04/26/2013|
r60, NOT A FLICK OF THE WRIST. Their conclusions have been debunked many times, and some if it is laughable on its face.
Some of the ridiculous things they expected us to believe: that in all the US there were only 6 planes available that could have been scrambled. A country with more than 200 airbases not including coast guard, navy, army, and national guard installations. That NORAD had no North American radar, a ridiculous nonsense contradicted by 60 years of routine interception of unknown intruding aircraft. That the war games that day had every single person in the air force unable to respond to a crisis. A million obvious lies that no ten year old would buy.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||04/26/2013|
Why does Occam's razor favor an inside job for 9/11? Well, for starters the military has had the capability of remote control flying of civilian aircraft since 1984. Which means someone sitting on the ground with a laptop could fly all the planes on 9.11 into their targets without the pilots or anyone else on board being able to stop them. No need for hijackers. Instead of 20 men who had to be trained, taught English, taught to fly, taught personal combat, trained, moved to the appropriate places and timed to make their efforts simeultaneous. Just one man with a laptop and a few people to put the electronics on the planes - and since the military leases civilian 767s as fuel tankers, the planes could be done easily and then handed to airlines.
So how many men does it take to wire a building for explosives? Very few. The largest implosion contrator in the country has 15 employees. But someone would see the charges? Not in a modern office building with dropped ceilings. But someone would see them working? The buildings were given over to a maintenance project shortly before 9.11
How many people does it take to prevent a military response? Very few, if you've changed the protocols so only the Secretary of Defense can authorize interceptions, which was done early in 2001 by Donald Rumsfeld, who thought it was "wasteful" that the military scrambled planes all the time to interdict unidentified aircraft without civilian request.
Indeed, very little manpower is needed on the front end. What manpower needs existed were on the back end: the FBI to collect the videos at the Pentagon, some type of media management to prevent questions being asked, protecting the president in case the whole thing got blown, that sort of thing.
But the actual events? Much more easily done by a few insiders than by fanatics who had to be trained and supported in a hostile and alien environment for years.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||04/26/2013|
[quote] What is wrong with the conspiracy theorists?
What ISN'T wrong with them?
|by Anonymous||reply 74||04/26/2013|
[quote]Their conclusions have been debunked many times, and some if it is laughable on its face.
"Debunked"by people already committed to the conspiracy theory doesn't mean anything. The fact that they already believe in this crazy scenario calls their judgement and expertise into question. Call me when the NIST report is debunked by a credible organization that is not already dedicated to the truther story.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||04/26/2013|
The Toronto Report has done just that R75.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||04/26/2013|
The Toronto Report was not generated by a conference of people already committed to the Truther position? Come on, r77, you will have to do better than that.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||04/26/2013|
The always level-headed and fair-minded Rachel Maddow recently covered these conspiracy theorists and why they have gained prominence.
As with so many of our current problems in America, it is the Tea Baggers and Fox "News" who are to blame. Their crazy shit is accepted and even broadcast, giving it undeserved prominence and support. It encourages other weak-minded, unhappy, paranoid people to believe this nonsense and gives them a focus for their batshit theories and overwhelming anxiety.
The proper response to these poor souls is the same now as it has always been. We feel sorry for them and hope that they seek professional help. Since they are wrong, annoying and disruptive they are not welcomed or indulged by sensible people.
In a choice between Popular Mechanics and raving lunacy, most people choose Popular Mechanics. Go figure.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||04/26/2013|
[quote]They also seem to be intellectually insecure and enjoy the idea that they are smarter than everyone else. They are especially fond of calling their critics blind, stupid and brainwashed.
This is exactly it, OP. It makes them feel smart that they've done their "research", and their source is outside the MSM. Their source may be wonky as hell, but it's not the MSM, so it *must* be valid. There was a great video of some old birther frau who, when directly challenged on her beliefs, couldn't come up with a valid argument off the top of her head--she just kept repeating the old "look it up!" mantra.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||04/26/2013|
Rachel Maddow is neither level headed nor fair. She's as much a prisoner of corporate masters as anyone.
To reject conspiracies out of hand you have to believe the government doesn't lie to you, and that's a mentally ill position.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||04/26/2013|
Debunking Popular Mechanics from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
But they're already committed to a position, you say! Well, as you will recall, the Popular Mechanics author was a relative of Bush's National Security czar, so PM was not an "independent source" either.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||04/26/2013|
Oh yes, that's right, Ben Chertoff denies being related to Michael Chertoff. But actually, conspiracists didn't just assume they were related, they got that story from BC's mother. Now they've published family trees to prove that they aren't related, but you can make up anything, can't you. Chertoff is not the "Smith" name of Belarus. It is far more likely that two people named Chertoff are related than two people named Netanyahu, for example.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||04/26/2013|
Since most conspiracy nuts are too broke and paranoid to pay $18 to join Datalounge, if we go on Primetime long/often enough, maybe they'll go away and find some other website to trash.
We didn't used to have them here, I don't know where they came from and I want them to leave.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||04/26/2013|
For the sake of argument, r73, let's assume it really would be that easy to wire the building without being detected. Then why invent the scenario of jets being hijacked and flown into the building? The conspirators could have blown up the buildings without going to all the trouble of crashing jets. They could then have framed some likely suspects for wiring the buildings.
Let's assume that conspirators really did wire the buildings to blow up AND they really did arrange for jets to be hijacked and flown into the buildings. If all that was a ruse to get us into a war in Iraq, then why not frame some Iraqis? Why go to all that trouble to frame Saudis and Yemenis?
|by Anonymous||reply 87||04/26/2013|
Sheez - don't even try to tell me about it. I'm totally fed up with those conspiracy kooks!
|by Anonymous||reply 88||04/26/2013|
A terrorist bomb in a building that's been previously bombed is not enough. Indeed, without Washington, it's just an incident.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||04/26/2013|
And they had just reinforced that wing, and only that wing, of the Pentagon. If something his an unreinforced section, the whole building might have been compromised.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||04/26/2013|
[italic]A terrorist bomb in a building that's been previously bombed is not enough. Indeed, without Washington, it's just an incident.[/italic]
Bullshit. Bringing down an entire building and killing that many people is not an incident. It's a disaster. Just look how much attention is being paid to a clothing factory building in Bangladesh. And that's a lot of poor people in a country few people pay attention to. That's nothing compared to a skyscraper in a rich city full of media outlets.
You've had over 11 years to come up with an explanation and you haven't. It's doesn't make sense, and you're so wedded to your conspiracy theory you can't admit it.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||04/26/2013|
What happened after the WTC attack in 1993 (done at the behest of an FBI informant)? Nothing happened, that's what.
What happened after Oklahoma City? Of a terrorism bill was passed, but it wasn't the National Security State nonsense that we found in the Patriot Act. Of course, Bill Clinton wasn't usurping the office of president to which he had not been elected.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||04/26/2013|
The Bush administration had no legitimacy. All of the intelligent 5% of the public were well aware they were not elected and it was not even something that could be disputed.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||04/26/2013|
Anyway I didn't have eleven years because I didn't see the conspiracy myself until 2005 when I started to learn more about the controlled demolition industry and read an article with the biggest contractor, who said he could down every bridge in America and nobody would ever know.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||04/26/2013|