A real 911 government conspiracy would have required the use of patsies from the actual countries we wanted to invade.
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 7 minutes ago
Anti-vaxers and flat earthers are my favourites.
.............
9/11 ones are mine.
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 2 seconds ago
A real 911 government conspiracy would have required the use of patsies from the actual countries we wanted to invade.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, they facked up there, didn’t they
Elvis (U7425)
But you're thinking about things logically.
I think you have to strip that back a bit, because there are all sorts of things we don't know about - including technological advancements.
Do I think that it's feasible that they carried in explosives past security guards? No.
Do I think it's feasible that explosions could have been triggered in a different way? Yes.
Governments and corporations rely on our lack of knowledge to hide things from us, in many respects.
I'm not saying I believe it. I just believe it's plausible.
Whatever technology we think we have the military are at least ten years ahead.
44 years was what I was told.
9/11 is conceivable though, i don't believe it but you can see how it could be achieved.
An ice wall surrounding a flat plain guarded by the UN that's covered by a dome of glass or someting with fairy lights embedded into it just isn't.
Or maybe im a government shill getting a taste of that sweet nasa money to throw you sheep off the scent...
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 39 seconds ago
Elvis (U7425)
But you're thinking about things logically.
I think you have to strip that back a bit, because there are all sorts of things we don't know about - including technological advancements.
Do I think that it's feasible that they carried in explosives past security guards? No.
Do I think it's feasible that explosions could have been triggered in a different way? Yes.
Governments and corporations rely on our lack of knowledge to hide things from us, in many respects.
I'm not saying I believe it. I just believe it's plausible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a logical conspiracy theory for you.
Any engineer will tell you that any building will eventually collapse if you allow it to burn long enough. Doesn't even have to be an accelerant-induced fire. Any house fire will do.
Of all the days for the sprinkler systems in all the buildings in the WTC complex to have somehow collectively failed, it had to be that day.
9/11 is conceivable though, i don't believe it but you can see how it could be achieved.
............
No I can not.
It was too big to be kept secret. Far too many people would have had to be in on it.
comment by Michael Edwards FC {Proud owner of the 5 000 000th comment} (U2720)
posted 7 minutes ago
44 years was what I was told.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Tsar Bomba" hydrogen bomb that the Soviets tested back in 1961 required an actual separate atomic bomb just to detonate it.
None of us could even begin to fathom the level of firepower that mankind has at his disposal in 2019.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
Elvis (U7425)
But you're thinking about things logically.
I think you have to strip that back a bit, because there are all sorts of things we don't know about - including technological advancements.
-------------------
Even if it was some kind of super-explosive that only required small quantities, you still need the planters to have access on every level to the steel. I just don't see how the security team allow that to happen unless they are all in on it, which is ridiculous to me.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 6 minutes ago
9/11 is conceivable though, i don't believe it but you can see how it could be achieved.
............
No I can not.
It was too big to be kept secret. Far too many people would have had to be in on it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get your point and like I said I don't beleive it but on a scale of plausible conspirocy theories this one would be at the upper end of achievable.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
Elvis (U7425)
But you're thinking about things logically.
I think you have to strip that back a bit, because there are all sorts of things we don't know about - including technological advancements.
-------------------
Even if it was some kind of super-explosive that only required small quantities, you still need the planters to have access on every level to the steel. I just don't see how the security team allow that to happen unless they are all in on it, which is ridiculous to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, and most real conspiracies heavily rely on them being seen as ridiculous.
Like the explosions that you see as the building collapses there's far more logical reasons why this happened like maybe gas tanks for central heating exploding as the building above it collapses on them.
How many people would it take to be in on it to simply fly the planes and crash them?
Forget all the explosives stuff.
this one would be at the upper end of achievable.
....................
No it wouldn't.
comment by Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 3 minutes ago
How many people would it take to be in on it to simply fly the planes and crash them?
Forget all the explosives stuff.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 planes?
That's at least 4 pilots.........
.......plus someone reliable enough to conveniently leave a copy of their passports within viewing range of the nearest NYPD officer.
4 planes?
That's at least 4 pilots.........
..................
5.
There were 19 hijackers in all.
All willing to die on behalf of the US Government.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
4 planes?
That's at least 4 pilots.........
..................
5.
There were 19 hijackers in all.
All willing to die on behalf of the US Government.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they know they're working for the US government.
To be fair there is a litany if examples where operatives didn't fully understand who they were working for throughout history. That's what agent provocateurs are.
"There were 19 hijackers in all."
Based on...? What you've been told.
Don't. Trust. The. Government.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 11 minutes ago
this one would be at the upper end of achievable.
....................
No it wouldn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean it would when you compare it to other conspiracies like flat earth, mandella effect, space is fake etc.
It would take a team of people to plant explosives, another to hikack planes, people doing things in the real world. It really isn't beyond the realms of possibility.
Again I dont beleive it actually happened and do think there's too many people involved for someone not to speak out.
But to suggest it's impossible is a bit OTT
There's certainly an argument to be made that the US government allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen. Suggesting that they orchestrated the whole thing is a bit far-fetched though, IMO.
If numbers of people involved is the criteria for information being leaked, what happened with the 2007 housing market crash and why didn't anyone speak out about the shocking dishonesty prevalent amongst the credit reference agencies?
A flimsy argument against a conspiracy indeed.
Sign in if you want to comment
The anti-vax brigade
Page 7 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9
posted on 21/8/19
A real 911 government conspiracy would have required the use of patsies from the actual countries we wanted to invade.
posted on 21/8/19
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 7 minutes ago
Anti-vaxers and flat earthers are my favourites.
.............
9/11 ones are mine.
posted on 21/8/19
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 2 seconds ago
A real 911 government conspiracy would have required the use of patsies from the actual countries we wanted to invade.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, they facked up there, didn’t they
posted on 21/8/19
Elvis (U7425)
But you're thinking about things logically.
I think you have to strip that back a bit, because there are all sorts of things we don't know about - including technological advancements.
Do I think that it's feasible that they carried in explosives past security guards? No.
Do I think it's feasible that explosions could have been triggered in a different way? Yes.
Governments and corporations rely on our lack of knowledge to hide things from us, in many respects.
I'm not saying I believe it. I just believe it's plausible.
posted on 21/8/19
Whatever technology we think we have the military are at least ten years ahead.
posted on 21/8/19
44 years was what I was told.
posted on 21/8/19
9/11 is conceivable though, i don't believe it but you can see how it could be achieved.
An ice wall surrounding a flat plain guarded by the UN that's covered by a dome of glass or someting with fairy lights embedded into it just isn't.
Or maybe im a government shill getting a taste of that sweet nasa money to throw you sheep off the scent...
posted on 21/8/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 39 seconds ago
Elvis (U7425)
But you're thinking about things logically.
I think you have to strip that back a bit, because there are all sorts of things we don't know about - including technological advancements.
Do I think that it's feasible that they carried in explosives past security guards? No.
Do I think it's feasible that explosions could have been triggered in a different way? Yes.
Governments and corporations rely on our lack of knowledge to hide things from us, in many respects.
I'm not saying I believe it. I just believe it's plausible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a logical conspiracy theory for you.
Any engineer will tell you that any building will eventually collapse if you allow it to burn long enough. Doesn't even have to be an accelerant-induced fire. Any house fire will do.
Of all the days for the sprinkler systems in all the buildings in the WTC complex to have somehow collectively failed, it had to be that day.
posted on 21/8/19
9/11 is conceivable though, i don't believe it but you can see how it could be achieved.
............
No I can not.
It was too big to be kept secret. Far too many people would have had to be in on it.
posted on 21/8/19
comment by Michael Edwards FC {Proud owner of the 5 000 000th comment} (U2720)
posted 7 minutes ago
44 years was what I was told.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Tsar Bomba" hydrogen bomb that the Soviets tested back in 1961 required an actual separate atomic bomb just to detonate it.
None of us could even begin to fathom the level of firepower that mankind has at his disposal in 2019.
posted on 21/8/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
Elvis (U7425)
But you're thinking about things logically.
I think you have to strip that back a bit, because there are all sorts of things we don't know about - including technological advancements.
-------------------
Even if it was some kind of super-explosive that only required small quantities, you still need the planters to have access on every level to the steel. I just don't see how the security team allow that to happen unless they are all in on it, which is ridiculous to me.
posted on 21/8/19
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 6 minutes ago
9/11 is conceivable though, i don't believe it but you can see how it could be achieved.
............
No I can not.
It was too big to be kept secret. Far too many people would have had to be in on it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get your point and like I said I don't beleive it but on a scale of plausible conspirocy theories this one would be at the upper end of achievable.
posted on 21/8/19
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
Elvis (U7425)
But you're thinking about things logically.
I think you have to strip that back a bit, because there are all sorts of things we don't know about - including technological advancements.
-------------------
Even if it was some kind of super-explosive that only required small quantities, you still need the planters to have access on every level to the steel. I just don't see how the security team allow that to happen unless they are all in on it, which is ridiculous to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, and most real conspiracies heavily rely on them being seen as ridiculous.
posted on 21/8/19
Like the explosions that you see as the building collapses there's far more logical reasons why this happened like maybe gas tanks for central heating exploding as the building above it collapses on them.
posted on 21/8/19
How many people would it take to be in on it to simply fly the planes and crash them?
Forget all the explosives stuff.
posted on 21/8/19
this one would be at the upper end of achievable.
....................
No it wouldn't.
posted on 21/8/19
comment by Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 3 minutes ago
How many people would it take to be in on it to simply fly the planes and crash them?
Forget all the explosives stuff.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 planes?
That's at least 4 pilots.........
.......plus someone reliable enough to conveniently leave a copy of their passports within viewing range of the nearest NYPD officer.
posted on 21/8/19
4 planes?
That's at least 4 pilots.........
..................
5.
There were 19 hijackers in all.
All willing to die on behalf of the US Government.
posted on 21/8/19
My bad
4 Pilots.
posted on 21/8/19
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
4 planes?
That's at least 4 pilots.........
..................
5.
There were 19 hijackers in all.
All willing to die on behalf of the US Government.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they know they're working for the US government.
To be fair there is a litany if examples where operatives didn't fully understand who they were working for throughout history. That's what agent provocateurs are.
posted on 21/8/19
"There were 19 hijackers in all."
Based on...? What you've been told.
Don't. Trust. The. Government.
posted on 21/8/19
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 11 minutes ago
this one would be at the upper end of achievable.
....................
No it wouldn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean it would when you compare it to other conspiracies like flat earth, mandella effect, space is fake etc.
It would take a team of people to plant explosives, another to hikack planes, people doing things in the real world. It really isn't beyond the realms of possibility.
posted on 21/8/19
Again I dont beleive it actually happened and do think there's too many people involved for someone not to speak out.
But to suggest it's impossible is a bit OTT
posted on 21/8/19
There's certainly an argument to be made that the US government allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen. Suggesting that they orchestrated the whole thing is a bit far-fetched though, IMO.
posted on 21/8/19
If numbers of people involved is the criteria for information being leaked, what happened with the 2007 housing market crash and why didn't anyone speak out about the shocking dishonesty prevalent amongst the credit reference agencies?
A flimsy argument against a conspiracy indeed.
Page 7 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9