Debunking Conspiracy Theorists Paranoid Fantasies About Sept 11th ...

reply to post by paranoia

I'm new here, as far as being a registered member goes. Have been reading the threads for about a year now.

After reading the title of this thread I had to reply to information provided which "completely demolishes the 9/11 conspiracy theroies currently circulating around the world".

Paranoia, I read the article you linked and optimisticly looked forward to reading information that would convince me that 9/11 was not an, what is referred to as, "inside job". Or, hoping that someone out there could provide information to the contrary that it was not a catalyst used to frighten in order to unify the nation and declare war on the middle east. (Pearl Harbor= catalyst for enterance into WWII)

Please provide, in your own writing, how this article debunks anything.

I was very displeased with how misleading your title is because the article that backs it is sarcastic and lacks validity.--I would like to believe there is not a conspiracy but threads like yours make me believe there is and the majority is in denial.


Looking forward to your reply

Next

This is very interesting.

The latest reply, and indeed others before it - have shown that people really do not read articles or links posted by the OP (me), and do little if any research of their own. Yet they feel qualified in jumping on the thread and giving their "2 cents".

I would suggest actually reading the article, first. Read it from top to bottom. You'll then realise your question is worded from the complete opposite angle you intended, and makes no sense.

I'll be blunt.

The play on words here is "conspiracy theorists". The author of the article is using that label on the "official" version of events and the mainstream media's explanation of what happened.

So to those people who have "read" the article, and have given their "insightful" comments on it here - please go read it again. Maybe a little carefully.

Dissapointing to say the least.

Look science proves the official pancaking theory is false. Enough said.

Inform yourself.

www.911truth.org...
davidicke.com...
infowars.com...
roguegovernment.com...

[edit on 11-28-2007 by CPYKOmega]

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
Look science proves the official pancaking theory is false. Enough said.

NIST has also chnged their story and stated there was no pancaking.

So they can cover their behinds probably. What did they say caused the collapsing now? Please inform me.

[edit on 11-28-2007 by CPYKOmega]

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
So they can cover their behinds probably. What did they say caused the collapsing now? Please inform me.

www.youtube.com...

So now after years of holding on to their "pancake theory" which was proven false by science. They are now grasping at straws stating. "interplay of impact damage and fire is what brought the towers down"

Pure gold.

What a joke.

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
Look science proves the official pancaking theory is false. Enough said.

Yeah, and please read the article before posting. The official story isn't supported by the article. So no need to go on the defensive.

Why should I? I already know that the government brought down the towers by controlled demolition. This has been proven with countless documentaries. I do not believe in the far out conspiracy theories. I believe the truth that the 9/11 was carried out in a controlled matter by government entities.

I agree that the hologram and far out theories should be put to rest as they are bogus.

You should read it because it shows a certain level of ignorance.

You do realise that your position on 911 is exactly the same as the author of that article don't you?

Deny ignorance? Try learning to read.

Sheesh.

Then why waste my time if I am already on the same wavelength as the author? I agree with him that those outlandish theories only hurt the real one.

I admit I didn't read the article and thats pure ignorance, probably because I have been there done that countless times before and am sick of all this 911 crap. Its time to move on.

No worries.

This isn't a one sentence response.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by paranoia]

reply to post by ULTIMA1

the nist video on you tube is so unreal...notice how they did not talk to the design engineer or the structural engineer that built the towers...i guess their opinion doesn't matter...and NO steel and concrete building in the history of all such buildings in the entire world has ever come down as all 3 buildings did on 9/11... EVER, NEVER... ONLY with a controlled demolition can those buildings have come down like that. a 1st first year structural engineer student would know that...

Originally posted by jimmyx
the nist video on you tube is so unreal...notice how they did not talk to the design engineer or the structural engineer that built the towers...i guess their opinion doesn't matter...and NO steel and concrete building in the history of all such buildings in the entire world has ever come down as all 3 buildings did on 9/11...

Yes, seems like NIST just keeps changing their story.

Like the final NIST report that states the planes and fires casued the collaspe when all prior reports stated they did not.

this type of thread resurfaces in regular intervals, f-ex.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

there are a few interesting pics, such as

www.abovetopsecret.com...

as for the rest, repetitions are exhausting. so i'll simply link an old post

I love the comments.....

"It was brought down by a controlled demolitions.... because.... I have seen countelss documentaries."

Ok... well I saw countelss documentaries that said it was Hong Kong Fooey and Captain Caveman! Does that make it factual?


NIST had what is called a working hypothisis. That means as more evidence was gathers or more facts learned. This could change. NIST never claimed the Pancake Collapse. That was a preliminary hypothisis by FEMA.

I agree with the premise--that 19 Arab hijackers guided by a mastermind with a portable phone in an Afghan cave is ridiculous on its face and that they did not perpetrate 9/11--but the tone is that of a snide juvenile rant and no serious discussion of events is presented or alternative theory advanced.

So, so what? This is news?