»The 9/11 Matrix has you...«

CaptPostMod wrote:

I've always found the same thing with "anti"-conspiracy theorists.

the difference is conspiracy theorist cannot prove anything. (thats why they are called theories) they take a small sample of the truth and create theories from it.

(and of course anti-conspiracy theorists cant either, they are just brainwashed by the opposing side)

perfect example: "the statue that didnt have 2009 on it now means that bush will try and rule until infinity" (the photos were real, it really didnt say 2009, but it has nothing to do with ruling until infinity)

personally, i cant believe something until i see as much of the evidence as possible...not just one side.

allone wrote:

the difference is conspiracy theorist cannot prove anything... and of course anti-conspiracy theorists cant either, they are just brainwashed by the opposing side...

Wouldn't that be the similarity, not the difference?

CaptPostMod wrote:

allone wrote: the difference is conspiracy theorist cannot prove anything... and of course anti-conspiracy theorists cant either, they are just brainwashed by the opposing side... Wouldn't that be the similarity, not the difference?

no, sorry, i should have been more clear...

"anti-conspiracy theorists" like to deal in facts, not theories.

"conspiracy theorist" like to deal in some facts and a lot of theories.

Quote:

"conspiracy theorist" like to deal in some facts and a lot of theories.

Another way of saying it is that there are some people who try to make sense of the facts presented and look at what the facts seem to imply.

It depends on how you look at how someone else is looking at it.

intell wrote:

Another way of saying it is that there are some people who try to make sense of the facts presented and look at what the facts seem to imply. It depends on how you look at how someone else is looking at it.

why try to figure out what they seem to imply when you should try and figure out the facts...not an opinion on what they might imply.

--...since the sun is out and shining bright (both facts) and there are no clouds in the sky (another fact) it seems to be warm outside...once i go outside though, its really cold...--

Quote:

why try to figure out what they seem to imply when you should try and figure out the facts...not an opinion on what they might imply.

Because time is of the essence and the (possible) implications carry much importance.

Quote:

--...since the sun is out and shining bright (both facts) and there are no clouds in the sky (another fact) it seems to be warm outside...once i go outside though, its really cold...--

True, but until you go outside, your first inclination may not be to grab a coat. The facts don't seem to indicate the necesity. Most of us deal in past experience rather than possibilities. This is both good and bad.

intell wrote:

Quote: why try to figure out what they seem to imply when you should try and figure out the facts...not an opinion on what they might imply. Because time is of the essence and the (possible) implications carry much importance.

the reason why i posted in the thread was because of the statue comment...(that was found on a blog for goodness sake)...

so, since time is of the essence and possible implications carry much importance...you dont want to take the time to think for yourself and instead believe what the blogger writes without question?

it doesnt take much time or thought to realize that 2009 has not come yet...plain and simple, Bush is still the current president, his term may end at anytime...that is why there is no end date inscribed.

so, then because time is of the essence, maybe people hurry or rush to fast into forming an opinion before they have all the facts?

intell wrote:

Quote: --...since the sun is out and shining bright (both facts) and there are no clouds in the sky (another fact) it seems to be warm outside...once i go outside though, its really cold...-- True, but until you go outside, your first inclination may not be to grab a coat. The facts don't seem to indicate the necesity. Most of us deal in past experience rather than possibilities. This is both good and bad.

of course we do, its human nature. although conspiracy theorists do not, they deal very much in possibilities...theories. that is what i was trying to show with my example...based on a couple facts i am going to go ahead and say it is warm outside without finding all the facts...and it turns out i was wrong. i can sit inside all day and say its warm outside based on the couple facts that i have, i can listen to my friends on the phone agree with me and say things like, "oh it looks warm out today" or "it is warm out today" and never know the truth because i never stepped outside for myself. (keep in mind this is just an example, although i admit it might not be a good one since what may be warm to me might not be warm to you, please dont focus on that but instead focus on the meaning)

..but i can take the time and get the facts (go to weather.com in this case) before i rush into forming an opinion on something.

anyway, this thread has become very off-topic...

allone wrote:

the difference is conspiracy theorist cannot prove anything. (thats why they are called theories) they take a small sample of the truth and create theories from it.

Well the official explanation is a conspiracy theory. There is not a single shred of evidence that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks. Afghanistan and Iraq where attacked on the basis of a conspiracy theory.

NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) used models of the twintowers, with damage and everything, to try to re-create the events of 9/11. No matter how they tried they could not make the towers fall from fire. And they refuse to show computer simulations of the collapse of the twintowers.

And the 9/11 Omission Report even denied the existance of the 47 massive support columns.

While the official story is being demolished constantly, more and more evidence is coming to light that the buildings where destroyed with explosives. So it is no longer just a conspiracy theory, it is now a possibility, if not a probability.

Oh and yeah, the offical report does not deal with WTC 7.

And molten steel was found several weeks after 9/11 ni the basements of the twintowers and building 7.

I was making a deposit in a credit union when I saw the broadcast of the damage done by the first plane crash on TV. Before I could leave, the second plane hit. That's when it occurred to me and others present that this is no accident.

Later, back at the office, I saw the second tower that was hit fall straight down. Then I felt that this seems all wrong. It takes well placed and timed explosives to achieve this effect on condemned buildings and I have seen them fail and the building falls on whatever is nearby. But I am being told on TV that two 47-story structures came down from heat? This explanation was scarier to me than the event itself. Because of what it implies.

there was a documentury in america and showen here on australian tv, about the world trade center disaster.

in this one part of the doco they showed a bit of footage taken form an amuture video. were it show an explosion before the plane actually hit the tower 1.

so after watching the doco provided by ghosttrax, it does make me wonder was the whole thing staged.

intell wrote:

But I am being told on TV that two 47-story structures came down from heat?

Yeah it's amazing lol.

2 47-story buildings? I thought it was just WTC 7? Although I have heard recently that WTC 6 was blown up and left a crater right after the second plane hit.

This is fun:

Today’s Headlines:

A woman nearly froze to death while sitting in front of her wood burning stove. Paramedics said that her steel framed wood burning stove had 4 well seasoned oak logs inside of it. When asked why she did not light the wood on fire to warm herself she replied; “Obviously you haven’t read the 911 Commission report?”

***********

The owner of a 60 story steel framed sky scraper was arrested for arson when he allegedly set fires to the 2nd and 7th floors of his building. Lawyers for the suspect are arguing that their client has gone through the necessary channels to obtain the permits needed for controlled demolition of his own building.

************

A man was arrested today after authorities had to evacuate several people from the back yard of the suspects home. Witnesses in the area are reporting that the suspect foolishly poured Kingsford lighter fluid directly onto a pile of coals in a multi level steel framed barbecue.

Authorities believe that after setting the fire, the lid was then closed nearly all of the way down allowing only a small amount of oxygen to enter. NORAD scrambled fighter jets and flew them over the Atlantic ocean for approximately one hour. “It was a miracle nobody was injured!” said one eyewitness. Just as the last of the evacuee were whisked away, total collapse of the barbecue ensued.

The top rack of the barbecue heated until it lost its load bearing strength causing it to crash down on to the next grill and so on and so on. As we have learned initial collapse of steel framed barbecues inevitably lead to total collapse. Nothing could have survived that fire said "Dr. Thomas Eagar."

Not surprisingly, the event triggered two coals to catch fire in another steel framed barbecue approximately 30 feet away. As expected the raging inferno caused complete and total collapse of that barbecue as well.

Two military F16 fighters were seen flying over head after the second collapse. NORAD is investigating the route of the scrambled fighters claiming that the FAA may not have warned them in time. NORAD is also investigating whether or not they did indeed scramble any jets.

Meanwhile President Bush has issued a stern warning to all evil doers. Bush said that he is ready to attack somebody someplace that has oil in order to protect American Sheeple.

The American Sheeple are praising the administration for their handling of the situation. A spokesman at the pentagon said they were not sure about anything including the date displayed on their security video.

The suspect is being held without bail until authorities get around to charging him with a crime. It is also being reported that the FBI found a barbecue manual in the suspects car. Depending upon the charges filed, He could face the maximum sentence allowed which is a date with Janet Reno.

Conspiracy theorists are questioning the official story stating that no steel framed charcoal barbecue fire has ever caused a steel framed barbecue to collapse before.

allone wrote:

GhostTrax wrote: But that's not the scary part. Notice the inscription on the marble pedestal. The inscription noting the duration of Bush's presidential term doesn't read "2001-2009." It reads "2001-BLANK." In other words, the statue says he's going to be president from 2001 through infinity! Everyone knows that Bush is supposed to leave office in January of 2009. No mystery. No uncertainty. The 22nd Amendment makes it so. It's the law. No gray area. Or is there? sorry, i just had to say real quick about the above comment: wow, youre kidding, right? come on! think about it for yourself instead of just blindly believing/following what you read on the internet! it doesnt have 2009 inscribed since 2009 hasnt come yet. what if he were to die of an accident or anything else before 2009? his term would end before 2009, thats what would happen...and then there would be an incorrect inscription in a marble pedestal...try erasing it and putting in a new date. or maybe you would be happy if it were to say, "2001 - present" up until he leaves office, then they can erase it and inscribe something else... ...but when you read that sort of thing on the type of websites that you are linking to...i can see why you would think that is such a horrible thing. (oh, right, there must be a conspiracy because it doesnt show when his term will end...bush and co are going to re-write the constitution to allow for life terms in the presidency...right? oh, but wait...using the same "conspiracy logic" the government must be planning on assassinating bush since they didnt fill in 2009...so they must know for a fact that he will leave office before 2009! OMG! and the inscription is the proof.... see its easy to start conspiracies, just make a claim, get some others to believe it, gather up some quotes out of context...or hell just make them up, post it on the internet with some photos that help support your theory, anyone can do it) my personal theory on 9/11 is that the secret hurricane machine that was created by bush to wipe out new orleans was being tested in new york that day...they were trying to see how strong they could get the winds...and that knocked some planes off course and so on. maybe i should write all this down in a blog also so that others may link to it as proof that it is true?

Well said! You can't believe everything you read!

GhostTrax wrote:

And I bet you didn't know that Kerry and Bush are cousins?

You believe that? Goodness! You have been reading way to many conspiracy theories!

AgentDragon wrote:

You believe that? Goodness! You have been reading way to many conspiracy theories!

Yeah, like that would be soooo weird lol!

allone wrote:

how does this contribute to any conspiracy...i really cannot see it.

I just asked Agent Dragon if he knew they where cousins.

GhostTrax wrote:

allone wrote: how does this contribute to any conspiracy...i really cannot see it. I just asked Agent Dragon if he knew they where cousins.

oh, i asked how it contributes to the conspiracy because this thread is about the 9/11 conspiracy...so when you post it, it appears as though you are trying to pass it off as being related to a conspiracy somehow.

and the way you said it, "And I bet you didn't know that Kerry and Bush are cousins?" is kinda misleading dont you think? why didnt you include the part about them being 16th cousins, three times removed...is it because it wouldnt have as much of an impact?

and again, trace your geneology back far enough and you may discover that you too may very well be related to either of them. so if you are going to say that they are cousins, then go ahead and say that you are also a cousin of theirs.

Quote:

Conspiracy theorists are questioning the official story stating that no steel framed charcoal barbecue fire has ever caused a steel framed barbecue to collapse before.

This synapsis is so good, I have to continue it.

In a press release, President Bush has called all those questioning the official story unpatriotic. Patrons have called for a boycott of all grilled foods and French products effectively making a hamburger and fries officially an unamerican meal.

The Patriot act has been modified to make backgound checks mandatory for all barbecue grill purchases.

intell wrote:

Quote: Conspiracy theorists are questioning the official story stating that no steel framed charcoal barbecue fire has ever caused a steel framed barbecue to collapse before. This synapsis is so good, I have to continue it. In a press release, President Bush has called all those questioning the official story unpatriotic. Patrons have called for a boycott of all grilled foods and French products effectively making a hamburger and fries officially an unamerican meal. The Patriot act has been modified to make backgound checks mandatory for all barbecue grill purchases.

ROFL!

GhostTrax wrote:

question911.com... Painful Deceptions Demolition Evidence.

about the bulding in spain (as part of his proof that explosives were used)...you cant really compare those at all, but i see why he did...to make his point look more valid.

keep in mind, the building in spain didnt have a rather large aircraft flown into it (which exploded on impact, it didnt just fly in and spark a fire, it exploded), its also not a steel framed building, its was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel alone

this looks interesting:

Now how does that contradict what GhostTrax is presenting? It seems to be more supportive of what he's posting.

he is presnting a video that says "explosives were used in the wtc towers" and passing it off as a fact.

the Windsor Tower in spain was used to help "prove" that explosives were used...re-read my post to see that it doesnt.

based on what was cited from wikipedia about demolition, which says, "The goal is to use as few explosives as possible, and only a few floors are rigged with explosives." and the fact that two large planes flew into the wtc and exploded on impact...one can conclude that this caused the collapse.

explosives were placed in the wtc towers = cannot be proven (theory)

planes flew into the towers and exploded = can be proven (fact)