Tin Foil Hat Thread on 9/11
- Thread starter Mcluhan
- Start date
FWIW, I don't buy the conspiracy angle on 9/11 either.papasmerf said:????????????
You mean right after he bombed the WTC???
I was merely pointing out that getting your Obama talking points from Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck isn't going to improve your image in a reasonable debate. Obama is no more a socialist than Bush was.
I like to rattle his cage now and again. It is more for my amusement than his enlightenment.Asterix said:Don't confuse pappy, it only makes things worse.
FWIW, I don't either. I am, however, willing to look at scientific evidence.lookingforitallthetime said:FWIW, I don't buy the conspiracy angle on 9/11 either.
LOL, I am glad you do not attempt the sisyphysian task of enlightening Papaidiot..lookingforitallthetime said:I like to rattle his cage now and again. It is more for my amusement than his enlightenment.
lookingforitallthetime said:FWIW, I don't buy the conspiracy angle on 9/11 either.
I was merely pointing out that getting your Obama talking points from Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck isn't going to improve your image in a reasonable debate. Obama is no more a socialist than Bush was.
Truth be told I work when Rush is on and don't spend time on the others.
But I do live inan obammanation.
That's actually not bad. pretty clever even. Better than anything I've heard from the Hannitys or Becks. Maybe you should get your own show.papasmerf said:But I do live inan obammanation.
Don't worry Pappy, it's better to live in an obammanation than to play in a bush league.
Sorry to hijack......back to our regular scheduled programming........
lookingforitallthetime said:That's actually not bad. pretty clever even. Better than anything I've heard from the Hannitys or Becks. Maybe you should get your own show.
Don't worry Pappy, it's better to live in an obammanation than to play in a bush league.
Sorry to hijack......back to our regular scheduled programming........
Remember this that on 9-12-01 no one was happier than Gore that Bush won.
I don't know about that but if so I suspect his opinion changed on 03-20-03.papasmerf said:Remember this that on 9-12-01 no one was happier than Gore that Bush won.
His wasn't the only one.
It would be, if he actually came up with it himself.lookingforitallthetime said:That's actually not bad. pretty clever even.
Sure.danmand said:FWIW, I don't either. I am, however, willing to look at scientific evidence.
To be honest, I didn't read the article. Mcluhan has been doing some research and it sounds like he's convinced.
The trolls here do not understand the difference between an article inlookingforitallthetime said:Sure.
To be honest, I didn't read the article. Mcluhan has been doing some research and it sounds like he's convinced.
a chemical physics journal that shows evidence of nanothermitec material in
dust from 9/11, and proof that the government caused 9/11.
A couple of comments. One, because i know you have a really good head on your shoulders, reason well, are educated, etc., i am of the opinion, you just have not looked at the facts. There is nothing in the way of a 'belief' required. You just have to look for the facts and let the real story emerge. The reality is hiding in plain view. As far as 'belief' is concerned, the official report is something you would need to take as an article of faith, because, science does not support it; among other things. You would need to 'believe', because that's all you can do. Its not supported by the evidence.lookingforitallthetime said:FWIW, I don't buy the conspiracy angle on 9/11 either.
Two, when you are actually ready to spend 4 hrs looking, you will come away with the facts, the real facts not the imaginary ones, and you will obviously connect them to the reality, because, they do not in any way conform to the 'belief'.
Three: one of the most solid and successful underpinnings for the 'belief' that the official story promotes as reality, is the fact that when people bring 'facts' to the table that do not reconcile with the 'belief', they are called CT and kook, etc.
I find its much better to just spend some time and look at the facts. They aren't going away any time soon, as among other things, they are based on physics, mathematics, and science in general. You will be living in a non-real version of this current reality until do so, i.e. living a lie. In my opinion, this lie will eventually collapse. Maybe not for the reasons we all think typical, but i believe it will eventually be outed. There is too much hard evidence now.
I do understand the reluctance to know the truth. Its very ugly, its beyond ugly, more than this, its a very dangerous truth. But the lie is even more dangerous.
There are many things about 9/11 I do not understand,
for example, 1. how could 25 people be so successful,
2. How to explain WTC 7 collapse and also 3. How could
a conspiracy be kept secret.
But I am confident that facts will emerge, theories will
be proven or disproven, and that the truth will prevail eventually,
if it has not already.
for example, 1. how could 25 people be so successful,
2. How to explain WTC 7 collapse and also 3. How could
a conspiracy be kept secret.
But I am confident that facts will emerge, theories will
be proven or disproven, and that the truth will prevail eventually,
if it has not already.
WTC was a controlled demolition. Its the only plausible solution. But i don't want to argue this with anyone. They have to do their own homework. Start with the engineers and architects.danmand said:There are many things about 9/11 I do not understand,
for example, 1. how could 25 people be so successful,
2. How to explain WTC 7 collapse and also 3. How could
a conspiracy be kept secret.
But I am confident that facts will emerge, theories will
be proven or disproven, and that the truth will prevail eventually,
if it has not already.
BTW, have you even seen up close, in the flesh, of a controlled demo of a large office building in a down town core? Just wondering. Some people have, i am one, but that's beside the point really.
Mcluhan said:WTC was a controlled demolition. Its the only plausible solution. But i don't want to argue this with anyone. They have to do their own homework. Start with the engineers and architects.
BTW, have you even seen up close, in the flesh, of a controlled demo of a large office building in a down town core? Just wondering. Some people have, i am one, but that's beside the point really.
I watched the video about WTC7, and it makes an extremely powerful
argument for a controlled demolition. I am waiting for these arguments to be
countered, because they are truly compelling.
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations and Recommendations.danmand said:I watched the video about WTC7, and it makes an extremely powerful
argument for a controlled demolition. I am waiting for these arguments to be
countered, because they are truly compelling.
Are they (the authors) a) all dupes or b) part of the giant conspiracy?
Last edited:
Rrreeaally ...
2. Sorry, I'm neither a structural engineer or a demolitions expert. I would, out of plain common sense though, ask just what bringing down an empty building after the towers fell was supposed to accomplish in the first place. Seems an obvious weak point for that specific theory.
3. The people "at the top" - Bush, Cheny, Rice, etc. were much more intent on replacing people who actually knew what they were doing with politically vetted loyalist underlings than with protecting the citizenry. Cheny had even more or less expressed the wish for something like 9/11 to occur. Those "lower down the ladder" were largely intent on defending turf and covering their own asses. Add to that the fact that conspiracies are generally SUPPOSED to be kept secret (DUH!)
1. The hijackers were dedicated fanatics willing to do a suicide mission (it's always easier to achieve your goal if you don't have to worry about getting away afterwards.) The plan exploited real vulnerabilities, though it was pretty much a "one shot deal" - remember that in literally minutes between when the first plane hit, the passengers on plane #4 prevented it from reaching it's target. no prior warning, no weapons, no nothing.danmand said:There are many things about 9/11 I do not understand,
for example, 1. how could 25 people be so successful,
2. How to explain WTC 7 collapse and also 3. How could
a conspiracy be kept secret.
But I am confident that facts will emerge, theories will
be proven or disproven, and that the truth will prevail eventually,
if it has not already.
2. Sorry, I'm neither a structural engineer or a demolitions expert. I would, out of plain common sense though, ask just what bringing down an empty building after the towers fell was supposed to accomplish in the first place. Seems an obvious weak point for that specific theory.
3. The people "at the top" - Bush, Cheny, Rice, etc. were much more intent on replacing people who actually knew what they were doing with politically vetted loyalist underlings than with protecting the citizenry. Cheny had even more or less expressed the wish for something like 9/11 to occur. Those "lower down the ladder" were largely intent on defending turf and covering their own asses. Add to that the fact that conspiracies are generally SUPPOSED to be kept secret (DUH!)
It is extremely hard to keep a conspiracy that involves hundreds if not thousands of people as this would have had to secret. Second, are there not a great many people out there who would like nothing better to expose such a conspiracy, yet they have not been able to. Third given the fact that Washington leaks like a sieve why on earth would anyone with any exposure to the workings of the U.S. Government believe that two would not have prevailed over one were there any truth to this.
Last edited:
