Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

9/11. Not interested in a debate here, but can we just have a quick show of hands?

663 replies

AnotherEffingOrangeRevel · 12/10/2015 12:36

I'm just interested in how many people around here are also highly skeptical of what we have been told about 9/11.

I'm really not after a debate (it would be long, involved, probably pointless and personally I have done this elsewhere), but I just wanted to see who is around.

It has very strong ongoing relevance for current world events.

Many thanks.

OP posts:
Helmetbymidnight · 21/10/2015 11:36

no one on this thread is insulting anyone for going with the official story

What rubbish. You think your passive-aggressive little comments - Oh woe, I used to enjoy thinking that way, and wish I still could - aren't insulting?

Helmetbymidnight · 21/10/2015 11:37

Oh ok, I've got your evidence. Some Russians think the Americans did it. So do you. And James Bond is not like real life.

Got it.

claig · 21/10/2015 11:38

'It's worth looking into the foreign policies of Kissinger, Brezinski and freemasonry in general (my grandfather is one - they value 'social order' very highly and tend to get very upset if they think they are losing at staying on top of that) '

But the motto of 33rd degree masons is "Ordo ab chao". A New World Order is a new shaping of the world and comes about as part of the Hegelian dialectic where theis and antithesis generate synthesis or order from chaos, "ordo ab chao".

Crisis capitalism, creative destruction and Naomi Wolf's concept of the "shock doctrine" are the means of creating a new world order out of the old. As Edward Bernays, nephew of Freud and often called the "Father of Public Relations" wrote in his book called "Propaganda" and in other works studied closely by puppets of the elite

“The great enemy of any attempt to change men's habits is inertia. Civilization is limited by intertia.”

They want to "change men's habits" and create a new world. They think they are an elite class whose duty is to rule over us. They use "ordo ab chao" to break the inertia of the masses.

You have to realise that the elite are not right wing or left wing, they are the elite, their own wing and they dislike Trump because he threatens their game. If he was one of them, then the media and the newspapers and the puppets would all be singing his praises instead of panicking at the prospect of his Presidency.

Original poster
AnotherEffingOrangeRevel · 21/10/2015 11:38

Only if you take them that way, Helmet. I don't consider myself any cleverer than those with a different viewpoint (and certainly not based on their view on this). That, I feel, is the crucial difference here.

OP posts:
Helmetbymidnight · 21/10/2015 11:49

No, the crucial difference here is that you are happy to say that you think the official version of events is 'bat shit crazy' and that the people who believe it believe everything the media tells them, but for some reason you refuse to enlighten us on your er 'very correct' alternative theory of events.

claig · 21/10/2015 11:50

As Alex Jones of infowars.com and other of the most advanced conspiracy researchers on the planet always says - the left/right paradigm is a false dichotomy, a trap, an illusion to give the semblance of oppoosition and change when in reality they are two sides of the same elite coin, two controlled parties that act out an illusion of democracy and whenever a real populist emerges to challenge the false paradigm, the entire media and puppet class unite in opoosition to that threat as they did against Farage and as they do against Trump.

The rules of the game are circumscribed and controlled by the elite and anyone who challenges the game and says it is phoney and says that "they are all in it together", "feeding from the same trough", "flipping the same homes and claiming for the same bath plugs" and "are all the same" is immediately ostracised as the entire puppet class unite against them as they did with Farage.

Original poster
AnotherEffingOrangeRevel · 21/10/2015 11:53

Yes, I find it a bizarre theory, once you look at it in detail.
But I don't think believing it is batshit crazy when it is presented to us in the way it has been. Far from it.

Glad to see you've read my posts back, though. You should also now be clear that I don't want to debate the details here and why, that I have no specific alternative theory to espouse, and that I'm quite happy to agree to differ.

OP posts:
Helmetbymidnight · 21/10/2015 12:03

You find it bizarre but you won't say what it is you find bizarre. You don't have an alternative explanation either.

Yes I understand. I'm happy to agree to differ with you too.

Original poster
AnotherEffingOrangeRevel · 21/10/2015 12:07

Good, that's agreed then, Helmet Smile

By the way, if you do feel like having a debate about it there are plenty of other forums to do so on line (or others on this thread might be willing to do so here). So don't let my reluctance to engage here put you off if you are interested.

OP posts:
Helmetbymidnight · 21/10/2015 12:10

I understand your reluctance to engage quite clearly.

Original poster
AnotherEffingOrangeRevel · 21/10/2015 12:13

Well, if you can read minds over the internet Helmet, then please don't waste your talents by spending any more time here.

OP posts:
Helmetbymidnight · 21/10/2015 12:22

No I can't read minds over the internet. Is this another one of your 'I won't talk about it' theories?

OurBlanche · 21/10/2015 18:05

So... 21 pages in and claig is still talking to itself and OP is still not saying whatever it is it is not saying!

18.00 hours and all is well Smile

nauticant · 21/10/2015 23:11

I don't understand why you conspiracy theorists are so afraid of putting their own theories and evidence forward for scrutiny.

It's because the conspiracy theorist's approach is to nit-pick away and to look for any inconsistencies, however insignificant, in any account of a complicated situation. Once an inconsistency is found, they shout "cover up", "lies", etc. They are paranoid that if they say anything definite it can be nit-picked to pieces in a similar way.

It looks like the Elite and the Luvvies were still fabricating evidence in support of the so-called "Moon Landings" in 2011:

www.space.com/12835-nasa-apollo-moon-landing-sites-photos-lro.html

Justaboy · 21/10/2015 23:24

WTC 1 and 2 well maybe, BUT i just cannot see how WTC 7 came down the way it did that stinks to high heaven!. And the official explanation well a total load of cobblers!

CultureSucksDownWords · 21/10/2015 23:27

Riiight... and your expertise in building construction/demolition/structural integrity is what exactly? What do you think is wrong with the description of what happened to WTC7?

Justaboy · 21/10/2015 23:32

OK how did that building fall so very quickly and evenly?.

It had a few fires not large ones and even if it did just how did all the structure weaken so quickly and suddenly?.

It was steel framed, like a lot of buildings are. Even with explosive demolition a lot of the steelwork has been cut and weakened to make them collapse in the manner which they do. So how just how did it come down like it did in the time it did?.

CultureSucksDownWords · 21/10/2015 23:41

This is the official report summary:

www.nist.gov/el/wtc7final_112508.cfm

Which parts do you disagree with?

Justaboy · 21/10/2015 23:53

Read that ages ago. Take a building of that type, its steel framed, the main steels take the stress loads mainly the whole weight of the building. Steel is a very good construction material in compressive tensile and shear loadings.

However its not a lot of good when its getting hot it simply looses strength that's why it's enclosed to keep the heat of a fire away for a given amount of time. That's its weakness. So in order to collapse a building and make it more or less fall within its own footprint you have to weaken the structure and do that very evenly all over the area of the building.

And even that sometimes doesn't quite go to plan see those Red road flats in Glasgow the other week, even there after a long period of pre weakening of the structure it was too damn stable to fall, least two of them were.

That's was after weeks of perpetration work and explosive charge settings by people very knowledgeable on the subject.

Now this was supposed to have happened after a few hours and a few random fires?. Show me anyone who demolishes buildings of that type who says that can happen in the way it did well I've not seen or read of one yet.

CultureSucksDownWords · 21/10/2015 23:55

Riiight... again, what's your expertise here, and what actual data/footage from 9/11 have you studied? Why should anyone take your word over the conclusions of experts in their fields with access to more information than is presumably available publicly?

Justaboy · 22/10/2015 00:01

It wasn't only mine the rest of the uni engineering dept where i worked had the same views, and that was "cover up"

CultureSucksDownWords · 22/10/2015 00:03

Oh for goodness sake, calling on mysterious others that agree with you doesn't make you opinion any more valid.

Justaboy · 22/10/2015 00:12

Why not?. Nite.

CultureSucksDownWords · 22/10/2015 00:23

Rounding up others that agree with you as evidence that what you're saying is right, is a fallacious argument (argumentum ad populum to be precise).

CorbynsTopButton · 22/10/2015 07:31

Rounding up others that agree with you as evidence that what you're saying is right, is a fallacious argument (argumentum ad populum to be precise).

But this is precisely how it works when there is a mainstream story! We interpret everything in that light.

The number of problems with the official story goes way, way beyond the WTC7 bit, and its impossible to do justice to that here. But as far as building 7 goes, no other building ever has collapsed in this way due to "office fires". Then three do it on one day, two supposedly because of planes, one for entirely different reasons. The rubble is immediately carted off with no decent investigation.
No one else is allowed to do a proper scientific investigation. The official one was delayed, underfunded and otherwise highly problematic.

Beyond this, the number of problems is huge, from the immediate and forceful media declaration of who was responsible with almost no evidence to the way Bin Laden died and was immediately dumped.