Page 6 of 13

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:01 pm
by R. Prime
Indeed I am.
I can't say I can be bothered to look at any of the other links you posted.
Good to see you've actually done your research before you open your proverbial mouth.

Happy weekend everyone 8)

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:03 pm
by jimbo_too
R. Prime wrote:Indeed I am.
I can't say I can be bothered to look at any of the other links you posted.
Good to see you've actually done your research before you open your proverbial mouth.

Happy weekend everyone 8)
And to you too. :)

So, did you ever get to cop a feel of Gillian Anderson?

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:55 pm
by mikeb
R. Prime wrote:The fact that it was reported as having collapsed before it did proves that it was a planned event.
Yeah. In the same way that Bloomburg's accidental obituary for Steve Jobs 'proves' he's dead. Wake up to yourself mate.
Did you watch the youtube video I posted above showing the owner of the building say he made the decision to "pull it?
Sure. Much more likley to mean 'let's blow up my billion dollar skyscraper' rather than 'let's pull everyone out of there" isn't it? :roll:

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:05 pm
by R. Prime
David wrote:I think all the consipracy wackos should be locked in a building and a couple of emtpy planes dropped on top of them.

They will soon realise how easily a building collapses.

plus I won't have to listen to their crap any more.
Yeah just to back up here a second.

Rounding up people who disagree with you and killing them is called "Fascism". You might have heard of that.

In fact, that's what the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet did. He was installed by the US government, after removing the democratically elected president.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9629840148
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/63821.stm

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:13 pm
by bolda
Why should "information" on websites like wikipedia or 9/11 conspiracy websites be considered any more accurate than "information" from the US government or the press? The argument that "the government feeds the population lies to get buy-in to their war on terror" holds exactly as much value as the counter-argument that "anyone can publish anything they want to and claim it as fact".

Regarding insulation in the WTC, remember that the space shuttle Columbia had insulating tiles on it's underside... it only took one of these tiles to be damaged by a fairly small piece of debris for it to have catastrophic consequences... I could imagine that the insulation in the WTC was designed to withstand immense heat generated by a "typical" fire, but probably wasn't expected to function at 100% after sustaining massive impact damage!

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:16 pm
by Dudley
psj3809 wrote: Ha ha ha that really makes me laugh. I dont want to bring up the whole religious debate again but here is someone who believes a lot of BS on the net about 911 being a conspiracy, yet he also goes to church and seems to believe theres a God who created the world and Jesus etc. You'll be telling me how Noah and his ark were real next.
It's hardly a surprise that believing one insane fairy tale makes him more likely to believe another is it?

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:22 pm
by R. Prime
it only took one of these tiles to be damaged by a fairly small piece of debris for it to have catastrophic consequences
Of course, if the WTC buildings were ploughing through the air at the speed of sound that might be relevant here.
Much more likley to mean 'let's blow up my billion dollar skyscraper' rather than 'let's pull everyone out of there" isn't it? :roll:


If he said "pull them" maybe. I've never heard of a group of people referred to as "it" before.

"See those people people over there?"
"It?"
"Yeah."

I'd say it's actually more likely that someone wanted to destroy the files in WTC that were the entire case for the prosecution for the Enron scandal.

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:50 pm
by rossi46
What I want to know is: what do you want from the RG forum?

Why come on to a retrogaming site and spout off about 9/11 conspiracy theories? Do you maybe hope that we'll all band together and march down to the Houses of Parliament, en-masse, waving our Spectrums and Amigas and Megadrives, shouting about how we're just not going to take any more of the lies?

Sorry, but maybe you should try to stir up someone who actually gives a sh1t about the theories :wink: :lol:

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:57 pm
by markopoloman
rossi46 wrote:What I want to know is: what do you want from the RG forum?

Why come on to a retrogaming site and spout off about 9/11 conspiracy theories? Do you maybe hope that we'll all band together and march down to the Houses of Parliament, en-masse, waving our Spectrums and Amigas and Megadrives, shouting about how we're just not going to take any more of the lies?

Sorry, but maybe you should try to stir up someone who actually gives a sh1t about the theories :wink: :lol:

FAKT

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:59 pm
by The Penultimate Ninja
Please. Conspiracy theories, leaping to conclusions and bad science are not "the facts".

Can you not see that by whole-heartedly swallowing a bunch of stuff you read or saw on the net and tv makes you exactly the same as the people you accuse of being sheep for choosing to believe the other explanation?

You are a hypocrite.

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 9:19 pm
by markopoloman
Who's he talking to?

:roll:

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 9:46 pm
by Emperor Fossil
Image

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:21 pm
by paranoid marvin
I find it difficult to see any reason for setting off explosives in the twin-towers - wouldn't the impact of 2 airliners be enough to justify America's #war on terror'?

I do find it quite disturbing that the Pentagon could so easily be attacked however. Although not much damage was done , how could a passenger airliner somehow get past the aerial defences of one - if not the- top defence installation in the world ?

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:17 am
by psj3809
rossi46 wrote:What I want to know is: what do you want from the RG forum?

Why come on to a retrogaming site and spout off about 9/11 conspiracy theories? Do you maybe hope that we'll all band together and march down to the Houses of Parliament, en-masse, waving our Spectrums and Amigas and Megadrives, shouting about how we're just not going to take any more of the lies?

Sorry, but maybe you should try to stir up someone who actually gives a sh1t about the theories :wink: :lol:
To be fair he goes on conspiracy forums and talks about retro games and annoying another community ;)

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:03 am
by FatTrucker
R. Prime wrote:The fact that it was reported as having collapsed before it did proves that it was a planned event.
With the greatest respect it proves f**k all. With the chaos and conflicting reports coming from likely thousands of sources all at the same time on the day its entirely probable that misinformation would form a large part of that.
I can almost catagorically guarantee that if a government were involved in a plot to f**k their own economy and murder thousands of their own citizens they wouldn't collaborate with a f**king news organisation on it.

Of the many conspiracy theories out there the ones surrounding the WTC are by far some of the most tenuous and almost completely without fact or evidence. They consist of little more than suspicious people, spreading and prolificating inaccuracy and misinformation in spite of the facts, and based purely on speculative 'evidence' written by other people on the internet.

There isn't a single reason the American government or other agencies would want or need to carry out an atrocity on the scale of 9/11 on home soil. There isn't a single justification given for the need for such a massive event by the conspiracy theorists other than America wanting an excuse to get into the Middle East......for which they wouldn't have needed anything on the scale of 9/11....so why would they do it?. Not only why but how would they do it?, how do you prep 2 buildings the size of the WTC for complete controlled demolition when they are full of people and security 24 hours a day. The whole evacuation scenario is a non starter as that kind of prep work would not only be highly visible and be discovered by maintenance and security people, but would require weeks of full time effort in an empty structure.
The fact the building had already been targeted and bombed by Al Quaida in the 90's meant security procedures were tight and thorough, there is no way on earth no-one would have noticed the entire building being prepped for demolition.....its just b*ll*cks.
paranoid marvin wrote: how could a passenger airliner somehow get past the aerial defences of one - if not the- top defence installation in the world ?
You're just being Paranoid.....Marvin.