kernow

I'm backing you on this one RTSTN!

Aardvark

The question is are those who support the conspiracy theory people who have never subscribed to a conspiracy theory before and who have been presented, for the first time, with incontrovertible evidence or are they conspiracy theorists who are working backwards from the assumption that they have discovered yet another conspiracy and now have to provide the evidence to support it?

Just a thought. Look at the names of those who support the theory - Shayler, Moore, Sheen, Alex Jones. All have identified conspiracies in the past and will go on identifying conspiracies in the future. Are they all credible all of the time?

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

mkpdavies

No, but they are credible some of the time.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Smidgey

I pretty much accept Hume's view on testimony concerning consipiracy theories.

As for 9/11, I don't believe it was an inside job, however, I do believe that the American government is covering something up (their incompetence perhaps).

Either way, I think it is completely irrelevant. Whether or not the state did these horrible things is not important. If we manage to arrest and give these people a trial, what then? Probably nothing, the state will continue to grow and continue to take our freedoms (it is a leviathon remember). Whether or not these conspiracies took place changes nothing in the political sphere apart from a few political disagraces and imprisonments.

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel

mkpdavies

I had it down as incompetence, until WTC7.


I still haven't seen a reasonable explanation for it and the media silence on the issue, makes me even more concerned.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

22ANDUK

What about 911 being akin to the whole Pearl Harbour conspiracy/belief?

That US authorities didn't plot it. That foreign forces deliberately aimed to attck it. But:

The US knew it was coming and LET it happen.

So I guess, it's kind of an inside job, not instigated or planned by the USA, but certainly allowed to happen to achieve their aims (entering WW2/invading Middle East)?

mkpdavies

LIHO vs MIHO vs Incompetence

None very palatable.

I have to confess, I have to stop my utter distrust of government (thanks to governments being proven to be full of liars and scumbags for most of human history) bluring my judgement on this one.

Just as the MSM sickens me with its bias and obvious manipulation, I see the same sort of thing from the "alternate media" too. They play them at their own game sometimes, using fear of the unknown to push their beleifs and ergo agenda on everyone else.

Sorry, but just as it bamboozles me how closed some peoples minds seem to be on this issue in favour of the official version (IE the one handed to us by our wholesome government and MSM), I also see worrying signs from the other side too. Sorry youcanhandle the truth, but you seem like an Alex Jones "zombie" or "sheep" to me. Instead of following the official line, you seem to be happy to blindly follow the AJ line instead.

I feel a lot of empathy with what AJ and by proxy you say. I think he hits on a lot of issues that need further looking at. However, there is a lot of stating things as fact, that clearly aren't fact, just hypothesis. I understand the urge to balance the official propaganda, but you can look as biased as them at the end of the day, just at the other end of the spectrum.

Thus I have tried to blot out what both sides say on this issue and look at the video and hard facts available.

Doing that, for the main towers, it was strange, but they were big strange buildings and the way they came down was weird. There is a lot of dubiousness and strange questions about them, but at the end of the day, I haven't seen any solid 100% proof to say they were blown up.

That doesn't mean they weren't.

WTC7 on the otherhand is the one that troubles me. Even forgetting about Silversteins dealings, what the building was used for, BBC and CNN reporting it collapsing in advance and all the other odd stuff that happened at the time, just the plain physics of it don't compute for me.

Even if the building was a raging inferno (which it never was compared to other major fires that have happened), even if a massive chunk was taken out of it (which depends on your definition of massive), there simply has not been a decent explanation for the way that building fell. To bring a building down that cleanly, takes serious work normally. Making sure all the main supports fail at the same time and that other pieces collapse neatly and in total symmetry, would take real expertise.

The building does seem to have been "pulled". The fact the MSM have done all in their power not to show this and even talk about it, is worrying for me. The MSM is biased and controlled, simply by controlling the news at source. This is how the MSM managed to almost blot out Ron Paul worldwide, even though he had amazing money support, numbers at rallies and even the odd good result (winning Washington and Alaska for instance).

That is what bothers me. It is a smoking gun, to suggest the official story isn't reliable. If the official story isn't reliable, then what is?

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Silvbird

I thought I posted this last night but obviously not. I'm new here & only joined becuse I seen the poll on 9/11. First I was a doubter, then a conspiracy theorist but after watching this & ok the main man here says he can't prove it, it sure provides some serious questions & a few possible answers & I'm now well inclined towards Inside Job:

oil smoke & mirrors
50 min - Oil, Smoke & Mirrors.

Alex McKee

You did post the message but it was stuck in a moderation queue, probably because it was your first post and you tried to post a video. I expect you can see why that triggered the spam filter

Welcome to the forum!


Alex

youcanhandlethetruth

That's a false argument but a good one that the establishment and mainstream media like to use.

Alex Jones is credible most of the time becasue he presents evidence to support his claims not theories.

Look at it this way - before I examined the evidence on 911 I thought everything in the world was huky dory and that society, government were essentially good.
But when you look into the hard facts about 911 you are shown other evidence which reveals it's only the tip of the iceberg and how shocking things are but also how real knowledge is never put in the public domain.

Anyone who cares about the truth and isn't willing to make up their own "conspiracy theory" about the "conspiracy theorists" can't ignor it.

Ask yourself, who invented the term conspiracy theory and why ?
Why did Bush say "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories" ?
Because he knows they are mostly all true and they're frightened of the people finding out.
I can't believe anyone with half a brain can't work it out.

So yes they murdered kennedy, diana, did oklahoma, 911, 7/7 almost everything except the moon landings (which are always thrown in to make the truth movement appear as wackos and uncredible)

It's like saying a mass murderer wouldn't kill more than one person and the chance of that happening are impossible - wrong !

How about looking into the claims, even if to disprove they're false ? (which of course you'll quickly find out they're not)

So please no more "conspiracy theories" - if you're not willing to look at the evidence that is in front of you, then you probably don't deserve to have an opinion on the subject.