The Official Conspiracy thread

I see all the more reason to have one than. I'm not aware of the consensus other than the fact that people claim that jet fuel weakened the towers. In which I posted a article that shows that even that isn't possible to do with jet fuel as it didn't reach the required temperature to burn the steel.

I'm not chemist, but I do see a bold face lie when presented and hardcore evidence that proves that jet fuel theory being a complete lie..

It's like im living in the twilight zone..

Lalapizzame said:

I posted an article that explained the jet fuel part. Then I posted several more links explaining other parts of 9/11 you wished to inquire about.

Are you saying the majority of engineers etc. are telling lies?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Like I said, I'm not a Engineer, but it doesn't take one to examine the facts.

Besides I posted a video that has very many professional engineers that agree that the WTC were controlled demolition. So to me, it seems that you're the one dismissing the engineers.

Lalapizzame said:

Those engineers etc. I posted were examining the facts. What makes yours so superior to mine?

I posted three links explaining various parts of 9/11, and they all had engineers that did not believe it was a controlled demolition. It seems you're dismissing engineers, and not least of all the majority of them.

Click to expand...

No not at all. I acknowledge them all. But you don't seem to be paying attention either. That film goes over extensive evidence, where they analyze key structures and things like that.

I think you should take a look at it.

The fire died down after awhile, that's evident to see as you can see the smoke turning black. The little fires that were there weren't enough to bring them down. As I said, look closely at a video that shows them falling and you can see areas exploding.

Another thing, the 2nd tower that was hit fell first before the 1st one. Now doesn't that strike you as odd? The story is ridiculous..

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Maddox's article on this subject makes for a humorous read for all!

EDIT: And while we're on the subject of conspiracies, what about the Titanic?!?!?

Bela said:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Maddox's article on this subject makes for a humorous read for all!

EDIT: And while we're on the subject of conspiracies, what about the Titanic?!?!?

Click to expand...

That's for people who believe in Loose Change in which I'm not one of those folks.

That there is demonizing the whole truth movement. Pointing out one thing to discriminate the movement as a whole is something many folks like you all do.

Infact that's what most you can actually really do.

"Instead of trying to disprove him with facts, lets just make fun of them, that'll work alot better!"

The only person that has seemed to hold his own is Lalapizzame

HackChu said:

That's for people who believe in Loose Change in which I'm not one of those folks.

Click to expand...

I said that it was a humorous read for all--and if you are saying you think such a thing is nonsense, then what is your problem?

That there is demonizing the whole truth movement. Pointing out one thing to discriminate the movement as a whole is something many folks like you all do.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but who's doing the demonizing? You speak in sweeping generalizations.

Infact that's what most you can actually really do.

Click to expand...

There's more I can and have... actually really done, such as the following:

1. I have asked you to not engage in confirmation bias
2. I agreed to a certain extent with you in a previous thread,
3. I had a conversation with you in PMs in which I said this:

Bela said:

HackChu said:

Bela said:

I suggest you read books like Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World.

I believe it will help you in your investigation for truth. =)

Click to expand...

Are you saying I'm crazy? I picture Demon with crazy..

Click to expand...

http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-...5795876&sr=8-1

It's a book which promotes skepticism and free-thinking, which I believe is what your aim is.

Click to expand...

HackChu said:

"Instead of trying to disprove him with facts, lets just make fun of them, that'll work alot better!"

Click to expand...

In case you don't know, the end of the article I posted did have factual sources which would refute what you're talking about.

HackChu said:

The only person that has seemed to hold his own is Lalapizzame

Click to expand...

With statements like these, you have made it clear to me that you're being insincere about the purpose of this thread. You sound like you're more interested in a debate in which people combat you and your wonderful, salient arguments. Arguments such as, "The little fires that were there weren't enough to bring them down" and "the 2nd tower that was hit fell first before the 1st one," which are compelling until you actually do some research.

What I sense here is intellectual dishonesty. Whether it's contrarily positing the same question back at people who ask you questions, or assailing people who focus too much on any one point as "demonizing the truth movement." This sort of language sounds more likely to come from the subscriber of a religion than it does from an individual who is actually interested in an intellectual discussion of the issue.

Bela said:

With statements like these, you have made it clear to me that you're being insincere about the purpose of this thread. You sound like you're more interested in a debate in which people combat you and your wonderful, salient arguments. Arguments such as, "The little fires that were there weren't enough to bring them down" and "the 2nd tower that was hit fell first before the 1st one," which are compelling until you actually do some research.

Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that he's the only one who has come here, posting links, not making fun of me because of what I believe, and has actually provided a good little debate, because after all...that's what this thread really is. However I'm not saying that I rule out all the facts or sources you two..well him has shown. I haven't seen a source provided by you at..Maybe I'm forgetting as you said you did.

Also, may I just ask you, why the United States do this to itself?

Click to expand...

Good question there mate. Now just for the sake of this reply, I'm going to totally disregard of what I think about staging attacks on 9/11. Infact I'll let you draw your own conclusion based on what you're about to see.

I just hope they don't do the same with Libya and blame an attack on Gudaffi so we'd have a excuse to invade them and neigboring areas. Even though we've been over there for more than 60 days. Which is treason anyway. War Powers Act.


In 1962, there was a plan to stage terror attacks in the US by it's own government and blame it on the Cubans so that we'd agree with them to invade and assassinate Fidel Castro(see a resemblance with 9/11?)

The declassified document is known as Operation Northwoods. Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, we are able to view this document in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Looking at that link, it says so itself that it was a set of proposals for False Flag terror that originated in the US government. These proposals were brought up by the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the JFK era. As he brought it up with Kennedy, he immediately fired the JCoS. I myself think that's why JFK was shot, because he was a true President of the United States. He used his own brain, and didn't do what he was told. Anyway, continuing on.

According to secret and long-hidden documents obtained for Body of Secrets, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. In the name of antiCommunism, they proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba.

Click to expand...

Now I'm going to convert this to recent events.

According to secret and long-hidden documents obtained for Body of Secrets, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. In the name of War on Terror, they proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Afghanistan.

Click to expand...

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.

Click to expand...

You can read the rest at this site.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html

So tell me this guys. If the Government was capable and already mentioning something as sick as this, why don't you think they wouldn't carry it out in this day in age?

I just hope they don't do the same and blmae Gudaffi so we'd have a excuse to invade Libya and neighboring countries. We've already commited treason to the War Powers Act by being over there for more than 60 days.

yeah...

The lowest point the first tower was hit at was the 93rd floor. Lowest point on the second tower was the 77th floor. That's 16 extra floors of pressure on an increasingly weakening structure.


Saying it was a controlled demolition is ignoring the numerous 911 calls from people trapped in the South tower above the impact zone telling dispatchers the floors beneath them were falling apart. And how the NYPD helicopters that were flying around surveying the damage radioed in about large pieces falling off the top of the tower about 10 minutes before it collapsed.

If Building 7 wasn't hit by anything, how do you explain the 10 story tall gash through the side of the building? Oh right...that's from where the debris hit it...

And yes, the jet fuel DID cause the towers to collapse...indirectly.

And lol at saying the US being in Libya is treason since we've been there for over 60 days. Congress made appropiations to fund the UN, not the US, intervention in Libya. So your "point" on that is kind of null and void...

yankee0724 said:

yeah...

The lowest point the first tower was hit at was the 93rd floor. Lowest point on the second tower was the 77th floor. That's 16 extra floors of pressure on an increasingly weakening structure.


Saying it was a controlled demolition is ignoring the numerous 911 calls from people trapped in the South tower above the impact zone telling dispatchers the floors beneath them were falling apart. And how the NYPD helicopters that were flying around surveying the damage radioed in about large pieces falling off the top of the tower about 10 minutes before it collapsed.

If Building 7 wasn't hit by anything, how do you explain the 10 story tall gash through the side of the building? Oh right...that's from where the debris hit it...

And yes, the jet fuel DID cause the towers to collapse...indirectly.

And lol at saying the US being in Libya is treason since we've been there for over 60 days. Congress made appropiations to fund the UN, not the US, intervention in Libya. So your "point" on that is kind of null and void...

Click to expand...

And ignoring your eyeballs when watching the areas explode on the corners of the towers is even better? I don't think so. That sounds hypocritical. Now I did say that Jet feul didn't cause the collaspe, but I'm sure that it may have helped some. You must not be paying attention to the firemen and policemen who say that they heard bombs go off. Heck, some people in the towers that survived said as much themselves. If you read one of my earlier posts, you'd see that jet fuel alone couldn't have brung them down. My point on the whole scenario is that the vast majority of Americans believe the official story when the Government said jetfuel caused the collapse. You would think they'd be more specific as to how they really came down. Instead they just said it caused it. Not even mentioning that it was directly or indirectly or even bringing up any other point besides what they fed folks.

And actually, Obama said himself he will "go under the radar" to do what ever he feels needs to be done. He went and stayed in Libya for over 60 days WITHOUT congressional approval not with. And that's why some congressmen are calling for a impeachment. They should've impeached Bush when he gave the statement saying "I'm the damn President, and I can do whatever I damn well please" and "If this was a dictatorship, this'll be alot easier",

Lalapizzame said:

We have been doing everything we can to avoid conflict in Libya. Besides, we have openly acknowledged the rebels as the legitimate government of Libya, why would we take steps to invade them? It's not worth the trouble, it's political suicide, and if we really desired a regime extremely friendly to us we could've demanded concessions in exchange for significant aid.

I can understand the danger of Cuba remaining a Communist stronghold dependent on the USSR, but Libya?

Libya is now predominantly under the hands of the Transitional Council, the rebels. Why would we invade, when the Transitional Council has not openly opposed us, and Gaddafi is already weakened? The Libyans would most likely resent or fear us, especially after we've openly agreed to refrain from troops on the ground, and we have no desire to be hated occupants any more. We have gone too far down the road with this new regime, and it would earn us the disapproval of our European allies and spectators in the Middle Eastern and North African countries. Not to mention, as I've said, it would be a politically incompetent move.

Other North African countries have next to no value for us. There is no reason to invade them other than to squander money which we do not have.

Also, I'm pretty sure the United States blamed the attack on Al-Qaeda, not Iraq. If their entire purpose was to war with Iraq, they could've blamed it directly on the instigator.

Click to expand...

When I say invde, it could be the neighboring countires like Syria. You have to realize, we don't get told about everything. To be honest, I don't think it matters what Europe would think as there are forces such as Britains who are apart of NATO that are there beheading rebels...

Former US Congressman Walter Fauntroy claims he saw NATO troops behead Libyans as part of the siege to overthrow Gaddafi's regime, a conflict Fauntroy attributes to the geopolitical agenda to re-colonize Africa.

Click to expand...

Read the full article here.


In that article, there are official sources.

As for Al-Qaeda, it's said that even they are involved.

Live_Wire466 said:

The President is fully within the law in doing so, just so you know. Whether the War Powers Act, Patriot Act, or through an Executive Order. Not to mention it's a joint UN venture, not solely a US one, so please get your facts straight. The involvement in Libya is purely legal and warranted, seeing as there's an actual threat to Middle Eastern security there and an actual reason to engage in war, unlike Iraq.

Click to expand...

We were already there using the War Powers Act. Now it's totally irrelevant since it's been longer than 60 days. The Patriot Act as I believe is now void, even than, how the heck could the Patriot Act be used to invade or "insist" another country? That made no sense..

The involvement in Lybia should be limited to UN troops not the US troops. I don't see Guddafi being a remote threat at all in the Middle East.

Here's something I just thought up to explain the "bombs" people say they heard and the "explosions" people see. A building collapsed. When that happens it makes noise, lots of loud noises, some of which I'd assume can easily sound like bombs.

For the "explosions," again, a building collapsed. Can you prove that the floors didn't collapse before the structural support gave out? Because the floors collapsing upon themselves moments before the towers fell would refi Troy create enough forceto blow windows out-which to me is all I looked like happening in all of the "explosion" videos I've watched [windows blowing out]

As for Libya, there is a BIG difference between the us invading a nation and the un/nato providing support for rebels overthrowing an oppressive government.

And you ignored the whole part about the us congress FUNDING part of the un support btw. How exactly is it without congressional approval if congress is providing funding for part of it? Lool