You misread my post.

I know what thermite is, anarchists cookbook ftw.

9/11. Because it brings out the best in conspiratards.

yeah, as i kept reading the thread it became pretty clear you were not on the truther side, sorry about that.

Ya, no. Those are ~the size of WWII-era fighters. No one is mistaking that for a 747.

I think it is a travesty that truthers have been reassigned to the right when the movement was clearly leftie nut jobs from the onset.

The left ostracizes their whack jobs. The right makes theirs run for president.

I found this website called 9.11 Consensus. Apparently they list their strongest arguments against the 9.11 official theory. Here's their first point:

Official Point: Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9.11 attacks

Counter Point: The FBI did not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which Osama bin Laden was wanted.

When asked why, Rex Tomb, when he was the head of investigative publicity for the FBI, stated that the FBI had no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

Also, although Secretary of State Colin Powell, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the 9/11 Commission promised to provide evidence of Bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, they also failed.

interesting that noone brought up the BBC news report itt so far.

At 4:54 pm, BBC reported live on the air that Salomon Brothers building (Building 7) had collapsed. The tower then collapsed at 5:20 pm.

Here's some of their responses:

"We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening."

"In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving"

"We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of ****-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another."



what's the logic behind this one?

Are you saying that the US Government told a foreign news channel their plans for demolishing WTC7?

Have you watched the news coverage of any major event lately (Boston marathon and the ex-cop killer that hid out for days)? They report anything that is even possibly true because it keeps viewers watching them.

And with the tornado at first there were like 64 deads and a bit later only 12 or something

Its funny some conspiracy theories I understand. Things where the truth actually requires understanding some concept that lay people just don't understand and seems to contradict "common sense".

Some of the moon landing evidence is like that. For example to lay people it doesn't make sense that you don't see stars in the pictures - but if you understand light and exposure it all makes sense.

But I'll never understand how somebody thinks that the Government giving a foreign news outlet the inside scoop on the WTC7 demolition makes any kind of sense at all.

Isn't it believed that most of the big news outlets are controlled by the same people at the top? the BBC was started in 1922 and is the biggest in the world, there's probably connections with the US government.

- the twin towers get hit and collapse
- the BBC reports that building 7 has also collapsed. the news reporter is then cut off when they realize the building is still standing in the background
- 25 minutes later the building collapses in what looks exactly identical to a controlled demolition (note that no steel-frame high rise has ever collapsed because of fire in the history of earth. also note that other buildings closer to the towers were damaged worse but didn't collapse.)
- Building 7 was not mentioned in the 9/11 commission report

that's alot of coincidence.

meh. 6/10. Some of the early stuff was funny, the picture, "undiscovered evidence", reenactment didnt pay off IMO

You have to show your work here, because no it doesn't. Cd's traditionally start from the bottom up.

building 7 looks like it's demo'd bottom up too check this angle



looks alot like this



all just opinion tho who knows

That's a pretty accurate summary of the entire movie. But there's bits of gold in there.

springz- So what's your comprehensive theory. That for some reason the conspirators tipped off the BBC that Building 7 was GOING DOWN and to report it, but they screwed up the timeline? Couldn't you just demolish the building and let people notice on their own?

This is really just a general observation:

Why is it that truthers seem to trust the 'eye test' more than actual empirical evidence? It just seems that so much of their 'proofs' come from snippets of clips on youtube.

This is entirely what makes conspiracy theories possible. The fact that people apply "common sense" to what they can "see". The problem is that the world and especially physics is ****ing complex.

And when you don't take all of the factors into account (and these guys are generally grossly ignorant of many things) you arrive at the completely wrong conclusion.

This is my example from before in detail. If you believe that:

1. Cameras take pictures exactly the same as what you see.
2. From the moon you can see stars

Common sense would tell you that pictures from the moon would show stars and so if there are no stars - CONSPIRACY!

But of course 1 is a simplification due to exposure issues.

Main problem with the Internet. People think its this great tool to finding out the truth, yet all it does is connect you with people just as stupid and uninformed as yourself who reinforce the idiotic things you've dreamed up and want desperately to be true.

This is right on IMO. It seems like some people just don't understand (or won't except) That there are things that "common sense" does not extend to.

i don't have a comprehensive theory because i don't know why the US government does what it does, just like you guys don't. i just think there's too much coincidence personally and it seems like the buildings were demo'd.

aren't there lots of americans who think the government called for a demo because they thought the building was about to collapse anyways (when it was on fire and stuff) and wanted to do it safely?

So you have reason to believe a building of this size will look one way when demo'd, and another way when hit by a plane? How many other buildings of this size have been hit by planes of this size? Because if you're comparing apples to oranges and claiming that that means something, then you're a stark-raving mad fool.

how many steel-framed high rises have collapsed due to fire before building 7? none. so it's just coincidence this is the first time in history that's happened? or is there some sort of reason this one collapsed? even though buildings closer to the towers took way more damage.