Who's the conspiracy theorist?

[eots]

It is freaking impossible for a conspiracy to blow up the symbol of capitalism to have been authorized through three political administrations.

so ?..whats your point ???

The tin foil hats are careful not to implicate sleaze bag Clinton but he would have been at the center of the criminal conspiracy.

bill clinton ?? wtf are you on about ??

The WTC was attacked the first time during the Clinton administration. Why didn't the conspiracy succeed back then?

the FBI blew it and where taped by the terrorist they hired to build the bomb
dummy..

The terrorists tried conventional explosives instead of planes at time and the sleaze bag in the WH came out from under the desk with Monica long enough to call it a "foolish act by foolish people" instead of taking it seriously. The ironic thing is that Clinton was busy bombing a defenseless country in Europe while the 9-11 terrorists were attending flight school in the US.

indeed they where....

 

[eots]

I started a thread in which I asked " do you believe the official 911 story". The censors, er, excuse me, moderators on this site immediately switched it to the conspiracy theories category. If you read my posts you know that I never advanced a theory for what happened on 911. Instead I said why I didn't believe the official story and advocated for a real crime investigation led by a special prosecutor with subpoena power.

I was of course immediately attacked by people who for what ever reason chose to defend the official story. Don't like the message? Attack the messenger.

Bottom line is that I was not advancing a conspiracy theory, but all the defenders of the official story are, because without a real investigation we Are left with the impossible theory that Bin Laden and his lieutenants living in caves in Afghanistan could slip operatives into America and even though the FBI knew they were here they did not apprehend them. They then hijacked airplanes, made U turns in the sky but no military aircraft intercepted them. They then flew them into buildings which crumbled to the ground. They flew one into the Pentagon one of the most fortified buildings in the world, again unmolested. Then a modern 47 story steel frame high rise building which was not even hit by a plane completely collapsed into its own footprint in a matter of seconds supposedly as a result of fire, something which has never happened before. All this is advanced as the theory of what happened on 911 and I'm called the conspiracy theorist?

If it were not so horrendous it would be hilarious.

I'm no conspiracy theorist but the defenders of the official story are.

Without a real investigation we are left with the impossible conspiracy theory I outlined above.

By the way, I posted this under the conspiracy theories because that is what the official story is!

Oh great. Another CTist who couches their circle jerk in a false guise of objectivity while attempting to deflect and deny.
Like that's not been tried before.......

I particularly enjoy the ones who, when the silliness of their CT is exposed, sheepishly attempt to stuff their worms back into the can by claiming "I offered no alternate theory, I just don't believe the gov't version."

you have calmed many times you dont believe the NIST theory and tend to sort of favor the popular mechanics version but dont really offer any clear alternative theory

 

[wihosa]

If you read my posts you know that I never advanced a theory for what happened on 911. Instead I said why I didn't believe the official story and advocated for a real crime investigation led by a special prosecutor with subpoena power.

Yeah. You've never advanced a conspiracy theory. Noooooo. Not you wihosa...

No evidence? You can clearly see the melted off stumps of the columns in many photos from ground zero. By the way the columns are melted off at an angle so as to facilitate the movement downward of the upper portion of the column, just as is done inCONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!!!!

No I'm not a troll. Are you paid to try to refute the observations of people like me?

How do you know DNA was discovered there? Because people connected to the deception said so?

Proof of thermite? Angled cuts just like controlled demolition? The Deception? "Paid to refute"? The deception was well planned?

Right. I can see how you claim you've never advanced a conspiracy theory...

Your are confusing the submission of evidence for the advancement of a theory. There is no doubt that someone or some group planned the criminal attack on America which took place on 911. But no evidence was ever tested in a court of law. I have submitted pieces of evidence which would appear to contradict the official conspiracy theory.

Again we need a real criminal investigation by a special prosecutor with subpoena power.

 

[wihosa]

I started a thread in which I asked " do you believe the official 911 story". The censors, er, excuse me, moderators on this site immediately switched it to the conspiracy theories category. If you read my posts you know that I never advanced a theory for what happened on 911. Instead I said why I didn't believe the official story and advocated for a real crime investigation led by a special prosecutor with subpoena power.

I was of course immediately attacked by people who for what ever reason chose to defend the official story. Don't like the message? Attack the messenger.

Bottom line is that I was not advancing a conspiracy theory, but all the defenders of the official story are, because without a real investigation we Are left with the impossible theory that Bin Laden and his lieutenants living in caves in Afghanistan could slip operatives into America and even though the FBI knew they were here they did not apprehend them. They then hijacked airplanes, made U turns in the sky but no military aircraft intercepted them. They then flew them into buildings which crumbled to the ground. They flew one into the Pentagon one of the most fortified buildings in the world, again unmolested. Then a modern 47 story steel frame high rise building which was not even hit by a plane completely collapsed into its own footprint in a matter of seconds supposedly as a result of fire, something which has never happened before. All this is advanced as the theory of what happened on 911 and I'm called the conspiracy theorist?

If it were not so horrendous it would be hilarious.

I'm no conspiracy theorist but the defenders of the official story are.

Without a real investigation we are left with the impossible conspiracy theory I outlined above.

By the way, I posted this under the conspiracy theories because that is what the official story is!

Oh great. Another CTist who couches their circle jerk in a false guise of objectivity while attempting to deflect and deny.
Like that's not been tried before.......

Oh great, another defender of the official conspiracy theory, attempting to diminish the contradictions inherent in the evidence through ridicule.

 

[wihosa]

I started a thread in which I asked " do you believe the official 911 story". The censors, er, excuse me, moderators on this site immediately switched it to the conspiracy theories category. If you read my posts you know that I never advanced a theory for what happened on 911. Instead I said why I didn't believe the official story and advocated for a real crime investigation led by a special prosecutor with subpoena power.

I was of course immediately attacked by people who for what ever reason chose to defend the official story. Don't like the message? Attack the messenger.

Bottom line is that I was not advancing a conspiracy theory, but all the defenders of the official story are, because without a real investigation we Are left with the impossible theory that Bin Laden and his lieutenants living in caves in Afghanistan could slip operatives into America and even though the FBI knew they were here they did not apprehend them. They then hijacked airplanes, made U turns in the sky but no military aircraft intercepted them. They then flew them into buildings which crumbled to the ground. They flew one into the Pentagon one of the most fortified buildings in the world, again unmolested. Then a modern 47 story steel frame high rise building which was not even hit by a plane completely collapsed into its own footprint in a matter of seconds supposedly as a result of fire, something which has never happened before. All this is advanced as the theory of what happened on 911 and I'm called the conspiracy theorist?

If it were not so horrendous it would be hilarious.

I'm no conspiracy theorist but the defenders of the official story are.

Without a real investigation we are left with the impossible conspiracy theory I outlined above.

By the way, I posted this under the conspiracy theories because that is what the official story is!

Oh great. Another CTist who couches their circle jerk in a false guise of objectivity while attempting to deflect and deny.
Like that's not been tried before.......

I particularly enjoy the ones who, when the silliness of their CT is exposed, sheepishly attempt to stuff their worms back into the can by claiming "I offered no alternate theory, I just don't believe the gov't version."

And I particularly enjoy the defenders of the official conspiracy theory who are so gullible that they can't tell the difference between controlled demolition and fire damage.

 

[wihosa]

It is freaking impossible for a conspiracy to blow up the symbol of capitalism to have been authorized through three political administrations. The tin foil hats are careful not to implicate sleaze bag Clinton but he would have been at the center of the criminal conspiracy. The WTC was attacked the first time during the Clinton administration. Why didn't the conspiracy succeed back then? The terrorists tried conventional explosives instead of planes at time and the sleaze bag in the WH came out from under the desk with Monica long enough to call it a "foolish act by foolish people" instead of taking it seriously. The ironic thing is that Clinton was busy bombing a defenseless country in Europe while the 9-11 terrorists were attending flight school in the US.

So, like many of the defenders of the official conspiracy theory you are mostly concerned with the fact that if it wasn't all cooked up in a cave in Afghanistan then GW Bush might be implicated.

For the record it is possible that Bush was duped like so many others.

 

[wihosa]

If you read my posts you know that I never advanced a theory for what happened on 911. Instead I said why I didn't believe the official story and advocated for a real crime investigation led by a special prosecutor with subpoena power.

Yeah. You've never advanced a conspiracy theory. Noooooo. Not you wihosa...

How do you know DNA was discovered there? Because people connected to the deception said so?

Proof of thermite? Angled cuts just like controlled demolition? The Deception? "Paid to refute"? The deception was well planned?

Right. I can see how you claim you've never advanced a conspiracy theory...

Most of the 9/11 CTs here seem to be backtracking lately, now claiming they have proffered no CTs but rather have just rejected the official account. The effort is so widespread I suspect some collusion among them. Hey ... could it be a conspiracy?

Maybe they realize that advancing theories without a way to test them is not very scientific.

 

[daws101]

oh really ?

Listed below are statements by more than 220 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite.

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

eots' favorite non credible site.

your favorite dodge from highly credible experts statements

really? none of those people experts, they also have a bias that kills their objectivity and credibility, none of the statements would be used as evidence.

 

[wihosa]

If you read my posts you know that I never advanced a theory for what happened on 911. Instead I said why I didn't believe the official story and advocated for a real crime investigation led by a special prosecutor with subpoena power.

Yeah. You've never advanced a conspiracy theory. Noooooo. Not you wihosa...

How do you know DNA was discovered there? Because people connected to the deception said so?

Proof of thermite? Angled cuts just like controlled demolition? The Deception? "Paid to refute"? The deception was well planned?

Right. I can see how you claim you've never advanced a conspiracy theory...

Most of the 9/11 CTs here seem to be backtracking lately, now claiming they have proffered no CTs but rather have just rejected the official account. The effort is so widespread I suspect some collusion among them. Hey ... could it be a conspiracy?

Yeah. You've never advanced a conspiracy theory. Noooooo. Not you wihosa...






Proof of thermite? Angled cuts just like controlled demolition? The Deception? "Paid to refute"? The deception was well planned?

Right. I can see how you claim you've never advanced a conspiracy theory...

Most of the 9/11 CTs here seem to be backtracking lately, now claiming they have proffered no CTs but rather have just rejected the official account. The effort is so widespread I suspect some collusion among them. Hey ... could it be a conspiracy?

When you ask someone what they "think" happened and they hesitate to tell you what they "think" happened, they are disqualified from being taken seriously.

You walk into your house and see your TV missing, broken glass on the floor and a window that is broken, you can draw the conclusion that someone broke into your house through the window and took your TV.

That is exactly the same circumstance that we have in 9/11. We have 4 planes missing, 4 plane crashes, four hijackings, and 4 groups of passengers who were never heard from again. When someone wants to inject some sort of "unknown" into these facts, they are to be ridiculed because they are being ridiculous.

Theory is part of the scientific method. It is an attempt to explain the known facts. Since the evidence was not ever tested in a court of law a theory cannot be formed. I have been pointing out what appear to be contradictions in the official conspiracy theory, like for instance a forty seven story modern steel framed high rise building completely collapsing to the ground in seconds, exactly like controlled demolition and its inconsistency with what would be expected of a fire damaged building.

Go on and keep up with your ridicule, I will not be deterred and your position will not be bolstered.

 

[daws101]

Oh great. Another CTist who couches their circle jerk in a false guise of objectivity while attempting to deflect and deny.
Like that's not been tried before.......

I particularly enjoy the ones who, when the silliness of their CT is exposed, sheepishly attempt to stuff their worms back into the can by claiming "I offered no alternate theory, I just don't believe the gov't version."

And I particularly enjoy the defenders of the official conspiracy theory who are so gullible that they can't tell the difference between controlled demolition and fire damage.

that would be you guys.... if it were a CD, why the planes?
there is no evidence of explosives or thermite or any other exotic substances.
there were no video or audio capture of blast waves a sure sign of a CD.
there was no forensic evidence of their use either.
if you shit heads are claiming cover up then you must prove WHO ,what HOW AND WHY.
in 11 years you've done none of those.

 

[eots]

eots' favorite non credible site.

your favorite dodge from highly credible experts statements

really? none of those people experts, they also have a bias that kills their objectivity and credibility, none of the statements would be used as evidence.

It seems it is you that has the bias

 

[daws101]

It is freaking impossible for a conspiracy to blow up the symbol of capitalism to have been authorized through three political administrations. The tin foil hats are careful not to implicate sleaze bag Clinton but he would have been at the center of the criminal conspiracy. The WTC was attacked the first time during the Clinton administration. Why didn't the conspiracy succeed back then? The terrorists tried conventional explosives instead of planes at time and the sleaze bag in the WH came out from under the desk with Monica long enough to call it a "foolish act by foolish people" instead of taking it seriously. The ironic thing is that Clinton was busy bombing a defenseless country in Europe while the 9-11 terrorists were attending flight school in the US.

So, like many of the defenders of the official conspiracy theory you are mostly concerned with the fact that if it wasn't all cooked up in a cave in Afghanistan then GW Bush might be implicated.

For the record it is possible that Bush was duped like so many others.

bahahahahaha!

 

[daws101]

your favorite dodge from highly credible experts statements

really? none of those people experts, they also have a bias that kills their objectivity and credibility, none of the statements would be used as evidence.

It seems it is you that has the bias

no, but you'd say that any way. if I have a bias it's for objectivity and clarity two things you can't even fathom.

 

[candycorn]

Yeah. You've never advanced a conspiracy theory. Noooooo. Not you wihosa...






Proof of thermite? Angled cuts just like controlled demolition? The Deception? "Paid to refute"? The deception was well planned?

Right. I can see how you claim you've never advanced a conspiracy theory...

Most of the 9/11 CTs here seem to be backtracking lately, now claiming they have proffered no CTs but rather have just rejected the official account. The effort is so widespread I suspect some collusion among them. Hey ... could it be a conspiracy?

Most of the 9/11 CTs here seem to be backtracking lately, now claiming they have proffered no CTs but rather have just rejected the official account. The effort is so widespread I suspect some collusion among them. Hey ... could it be a conspiracy?

When you ask someone what they "think" happened and they hesitate to tell you what they "think" happened, they are disqualified from being taken seriously.

You walk into your house and see your TV missing, broken glass on the floor and a window that is broken, you can draw the conclusion that someone broke into your house through the window and took your TV.

That is exactly the same circumstance that we have in 9/11. We have 4 planes missing, 4 plane crashes, four hijackings, and 4 groups of passengers who were never heard from again. When someone wants to inject some sort of "unknown" into these facts, they are to be ridiculed because they are being ridiculous.

Theory is part of the scientific method. It is an attempt to explain the known facts. Since the evidence was not ever tested in a court of law a theory cannot be formed. I have been pointing out what appear to be contradictions in the official conspiracy theory, like for instance a forty seven story modern steel framed high rise building completely collapsing to the ground in seconds, exactly like controlled demolition and its inconsistency with what would be expected of a fire damaged building.

Go on and keep up with your ridicule, I will not be deterred and your position will not be bolstered.

Why would I want to deter you? You're the one sinking your own position by contradicting facts. For example, there are pictures of plane wreckage at the Pentagon. Tell us how it got there. You won't. This is what destroys any credibility you had sonny.

Again...
4 planes missing
4 plane crashes
4 plane hijackings
4 groups of passengers never heard from again.

No ambiguity there except between your ears.

Please dont stop posting. Its enjoyable.

 

[daws101]

Most of the 9/11 CTs here seem to be backtracking lately, now claiming they have proffered no CTs but rather have just rejected the official account. The effort is so widespread I suspect some collusion among them. Hey ... could it be a conspiracy?

When you ask someone what they "think" happened and they hesitate to tell you what they "think" happened, they are disqualified from being taken seriously.

You walk into your house and see your TV missing, broken glass on the floor and a window that is broken, you can draw the conclusion that someone broke into your house through the window and took your TV.

That is exactly the same circumstance that we have in 9/11. We have 4 planes missing, 4 plane crashes, four hijackings, and 4 groups of passengers who were never heard from again. When someone wants to inject some sort of "unknown" into these facts, they are to be ridiculed because they are being ridiculous.

Theory is part of the scientific method. It is an attempt to explain the known facts. Since the evidence was not ever tested in a court of law a theory cannot be formed. I have been pointing out what appear to be contradictions in the official conspiracy theory, like for instance a forty seven story modern steel framed high rise building completely collapsing to the ground in seconds, exactly like controlled demolition and its inconsistency with what would be expected of a fire damaged building.

Go on and keep up with your ridicule, I will not be deterred and your position will not be bolstered.

Why would I want to deter you? You're the one sinking your own position by contradicting facts. For example, there are pictures of plane wreckage at the Pentagon. Tell us how it got there. You won't. This is what destroys any credibility you had sonny.

Again...
4 planes missing
4 plane crashes
4 plane hijackings
4 groups of passengers never heard from again.

No ambiguity there except between your ears.

Please dont stop posting. Its enjoyable.

sure is! my favorite is the faux greater knowledge ploy.

 

[SAYIT]

Oh great. Another CTist who couches their circle jerk in a false guise of objectivity while attempting to deflect and deny.
Like that's not been tried before.......

I particularly enjoy the ones who, when the silliness of their CT is exposed, sheepishly attempt to stuff their worms back into the can by claiming "I offered no alternate theory, I just don't believe the gov't version."

you have calmed many times you dont believe the NIST theory and tend to sort of favor the popular mechanics version but dont really offer any clear alternative theory

You've got the wrong guy but you are one of the CTs to whom I refered who is suddenly trying to sew his vagina back on.

 

[eots]

Most of the 9/11 CTs here seem to be backtracking lately, now claiming they have proffered no CTs but rather have just rejected the official account. The effort is so widespread I suspect some collusion among them. Hey ... could it be a conspiracy?

When you ask someone what they "think" happened and they hesitate to tell you what they "think" happened, they are disqualified from being taken seriously.

You walk into your house and see your TV missing, broken glass on the floor and a window that is broken, you can draw the conclusion that someone broke into your house through the window and took your TV.

That is exactly the same circumstance that we have in 9/11. We have 4 planes missing, 4 plane crashes, four hijackings, and 4 groups of passengers who were never heard from again. When someone wants to inject some sort of "unknown" into these facts, they are to be ridiculed because they are being ridiculous.

Theory is part of the scientific method. It is an attempt to explain the known facts. Since the evidence was not ever tested in a court of law a theory cannot be formed. I have been pointing out what appear to be contradictions in the official conspiracy theory, like for instance a forty seven story modern steel framed high rise building completely collapsing to the ground in seconds, exactly like controlled demolition and its inconsistency with what would be expected of a fire damaged building.

Go on and keep up with your ridicule, I will not be deterred and your position will not be bolstered.

Why would I want to deter you? You're the one sinking your own position by contradicting facts. For example, there are pictures of plane wreckage at the Pentagon. Tell us how it got there. You won't. This is what destroys any credibility you had sonny.

Again...
4 planes missing
4 plane crashes
4 plane hijackings
4 groups of passengers never heard from again.

No ambiguity there except between your ears.

Please dont stop posting. Its enjoyable.

and none of it explains the collapse especially wtc 7 and none of it rules out he use of explosives of prior knowledge in the events of 9/11

 

[eots]

I particularly enjoy the ones who, when the silliness of their CT is exposed, sheepishly attempt to stuff their worms back into the can by claiming "I offered no alternate theory, I just don't believe the gov't version."

you have calmed many times you dont believe the NIST theory and tend to sort of favor the popular mechanics version but dont really offer any clear alternative theory

You've got the wrong guy.

oh so now you support the NIST theory..good I will hold you to that

 

[wihosa]

I particularly enjoy the ones who, when the silliness of their CT is exposed, sheepishly attempt to stuff their worms back into the can by claiming "I offered no alternate theory, I just don't believe the gov't version."

And I particularly enjoy the defenders of the official conspiracy theory who are so gullible that they can't tell the difference between controlled demolition and fire damage.

that would be you guys.... if it were a CD, why the planes?
there is no evidence of explosives or thermite or any other exotic substances.
there were no video or audio capture of blast waves a sure sign of a CD.
there was no forensic evidence of their use either.
if you shit heads are claiming cover up then you must prove WHO ,what HOW AND WHY.
in 11 years you've done none of those.

We know what the official conspiracy theory is, why repeat it?
There is evidence of thermite in every sample of the 911 dust.
Have you even bothered to look at building seven collapsing? Or the building which raged in fire for two days in Spain in 2006 ( I think, might have the wrong year) finally resulting in a partial collapse?
Again, it would only be speculation without established facts to try to answer WHO, HOW or WHY.
This is after all a mass murder and there is no statute of limitations on murder so the fact that no criminal investigation has been done for 11 years is immaterial.

 

[SAYIT]

Oh great. Another CTist who couches their circle jerk in a false guise of objectivity while attempting to deflect and deny.
Like that's not been tried before.......

I particularly enjoy the ones who, when the silliness of their CT is exposed, sheepishly attempt to stuff their worms back into the can by claiming "I offered no alternate theory, I just don't believe the gov't version."

And I particularly enjoy the defenders of the official conspiracy theory who are so gullible that they can't tell the difference between controlled demolition and fire damage.

Ah ... so you do prefer the controlled demo conspiracy theory. Of course, not long ago you were claiming "If you read my posts you know that I never advanced a theory for what happened on 911."
So which of your statements is true and which is the lie?