spierce Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > None of those are on the scale of what 9/11 > conspiracy theorists believe. It would simply > require too much. The people on the planes, > pilots, ground crew, flight controllers, hundreds > within the government…etc. > Why is that so? To suggest that conspiracy theorists believe that there was some massive plot involving hundreds of people defeats the theory from the get-go. Why is it difficult to believe in some group manipulating and collaborating with terrorists and then adding some spice of their own, like thermite cutting charges in the WTC? > Why is it so hard to believe that a group of > heavily funded, religiously motivated, highly > determined, people who had years of groundwork, > could take control of poorly secured planes and > crash them? > It’s not. It’s what happened after they did it that’s suspicious. > > 1. Bay of Pigs was exposed within months by the > stupidity of the CIA and Airforce. > 2. Watergate fell apart quickly because the > conspirators were bumblers. Not to mention that > it’s scope was far smaller. > 3. Don’t know enough about #3. > So you suggest that we have uncovered these conspiracies therefore all conspiracies will be uncovered?
When presented with a choice between believing in government ignorance, incompentence and laziness on one hand, and Machiavellian brilliance, top notch security and high quality planning on the other, I tend to stick with the first option. Always hard to prove a negative (that there is no conspiracy). It’s like trying to prove god doesn’t exist. It’s kinda obvious that there was no pre-existing conspiracy, and that there are no fairies at the end of the garden. I reckon I could prove it beyond reasonable doubt, but not all doubt. This thread has been a cracking example of unreasonable doubt.
Cook County/Daley and JFK. Well, since I used to live in Cook County with all my extended family, here is how the JFK election was told to me. The news stations would be reporting various state figures, however, IL was held up due to counting votes in the Cook County district. Basically, the rumor is Daley and his gang watched and waited to see the margin needed and basically gave JFK just enough to win. Wasn’t this the closest election ever (except 2000 now)? To stir the pot more, JFK thanked Cook County in particular 3x during his inaugural speech. Granted this was before I was born, it was interesting to me to see it in the history book and then complement it with the stories from my family who witnessed/speculated the rigged election. Also the Daley family has controlled Chicago since then yet never campaign…
Prime example of what happens when you examine conspiracy theories - the inquest into the death of princess diana: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7026611.stm All conspiracy theories dismissed as without foundation, despite theorists “evidence” http://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/ Lawyers make a load of money (that’s £4.5 million, or USD 9m)
> Why is that so? To suggest that conspiracy > theorists believe that there was some massive plot > involving hundreds of people defeats the theory > from the get-go. Why is it difficult to believe > in some group manipulating and collaborating with > terrorists and then adding some spice of their > own, like thermite cutting charges in the WTC? Do you even know how buildings are constructed? Do you know people who were in the buildings? How about those who were only a block away when they fell? Thermite cutting charges? ROFL. Every time I hear something like that I snicker. That’s the kind of stuff that comes out of people’s mouth when they don’t even understand how the WTC buildings were constructed. They put the towers into the rubric of typical buildings and assume that they’ll perform the same. Sorry, but the buildings were one-of-a-kind and fell like such. There were no cutting charges. The floor trusses weakened, pancaking the building. Since the trusses below weren’t designed to support the trusses above, you had multiple failures. Since there wasn’t the block-crossbeam construction, as usually found in most buildings, it didn’t have redundant structures. It’s pretty fricking simple and every Mech Eng. I ask about it say that it’s pretty evident what happened if they know about those buildings. >So you suggest that we have uncovered these > conspiracies therefore all conspiracies will be > uncovered? No, I believe in the complete incompetence and leakiness of the government. Look, this government can’t even follow simple military doctrine when it came to urban warfare and strategic targets (not symbolic). They fell into the Stalingrad pattern at the onset. Then they were utterly incompetent when it came to handling the provisional government and the Iraqi army. They went in with 1/2 the troops needed, 1/4 the armored vehicles needed. The whole story was based on BS that was completely uncovered. Afghanistan was handled poorly. The government leaks like a fricking seive and all facets of it, under Bush’s control, are an utter failure. yet, you think they can undertake one of the biggest, most complicated, detailed, and nefarious “Big Lie” exercises in history and be able to completely keep it under wraps for 7 years? Shit, the Reichstag fire was debunked in days, as was every other false flag op in modern history. What’s funny is that people see evidence of government incompetence every day, but then believe that the government is so ultra-suave and sophisticated that they can pull this crap off. As I said before, this ain’t the movies.
I do know how those buildings were constructed I don’t buy the theory about the floor trusses and that theory has gotten only lukewarm support anyway. In particular, if the floor trusses weakend and pancaked the buildings, it’s very likely that the building cores would have remained standing and possibly some of the exterior walls. That didn’t happen or even come close to happening. In fact, it’s the very nature of the construction that suggests that theory isn’t right. I agree with everyone who says that everything ultimately comes out if it’s known to about 2 or more people. I also agree that there is no way the Bush Administration could pull off anything as clever as orchestrating that attack and getting away with it. I generally don’t believe in conspiracy theories. What makes this different is that there clearly was a conspiracy which involved at least dozens of Al Qaeda members. It doesn’t seem a stretch to suggest that other people were involved in it too. The problem with discussing this is that there are clearly fruitcakes out there with conspiracy theories about everything and there are James Bond movies about Specter, et.al… To suggest that there are numerous things unexplained about 9/11 and that one of the greatest crimes of the century has not been fully explained shouldn’t group you with fruitcakes or bring up accusations of problems with reality-testing. In particular, I would like to know: a) How come the steel in the WTC was so f-ing hot after it fell? Open burn jet fuel just doesn’t do that nor does there seem to be a decent explanation for how there could be so much heat build-up in these beams. b) Why was there sulfur residue embedded in the steel? c) Why hasn’t anybody come up with a reasonable model of how these things fell? d) Why are we being so secretive about this stuff? It’s pretty natural to feel that someone is keeping something from you when they clearly are. There are films of something slamming into the Pentagon. The govt released still frames instead on the whole tape and then much later (think years) “released” the whole thing. The cockpit voice recorder of Flight 93 wasn’t released for years because of sensitivity to the families. Whaa? And this one has nothing to do with anything except my own head - If I was a fanatical American-hating terrorist who wanted to kill as many Americans as possible, I would have staged the attack to happen two hours later. If I was an American who wanted to mitigate the damage to assuage my own guilt in some sick way, I would have tried to get the attack even earlier than when it happened.
Bump