The most intriguing conspiracy theory

I like how this thread has evolved from "Vote for your favorite conspiracy" to another endless, boring, disturbing debate about 9/11 and the proofs it was a set-up to make people eat more KFC stuff and buy iPads.

Or something like that.

CPicard wrote: I like how this thread has evolved from "Vote for your favorite conspiracy" to another endless, boring, disturbing debate about 9/11 and the proofs it was a set-up to make people eat more KFC stuff and buy iPads.Or something like that.

Did you not know, no one who owned an Apple Mac died that day...

James wrote: Andy, I'm not sure if you have seen the September Clues videos but you should.  I don't say watch them to be convinced by anything either.  I just find it interesting that other people have completely different ideas about 9/11.  It's worth going through these videos just to see what others are positing.I do warn you though, some of it is quite difficult to get your head around.  Again, not because it is true but because people have these ideas or have analysed this stuff to this degree.  It's by no means amateurish in regards to the effort put in, even if you may think the end result seems preposterous.

Thanks. I'll look it up.

Blacksword wrote: James wrote: You have seen the footage.  It was the footage the BBC showed endlessly on 9/11. Really? I don;t watch the BBC news very much to be honest, but the footage I've seen the most is that taken by the French film crew who were in NYC making a documentary about the NY fire dept. That was taken from the ground (obviously) a few blocks away from the WTC. Is this the footage you mean?

That's the Naudet Brothers film which I mentioned as showing the first 'plane hit.  It's the only footage that shows this too.

There was a lot more "live" footage of the second 'plane on the BBC and the American Networks (CNN, Fox, ABC).  From various different angles too.  I'm sure you must have seen these?  They were featured in Loose Change as well.


Edited by James - November 20 2011 at 15:32

James wrote: I've not posted a single link or video, Picard.  I've deliberately not done so as people can find this stuff by themselves. I'm just replying to people with my thoughts.

 

Edited by manofmystery - November 20 2011 at 15:45

manofmystery wrote: James wrote: I've not posted a single link or video, Picard.  I've deliberately not done so as people can find this stuff by themselves. I'm just replying to people with my thoughts.     No, all you've done is regurgitate the same lack of thought over and over... wait, actually you've gotten more and more ridiculous each time.  Remote control jumbo jets?      You aren't even replying to peoples, though, because you won't read what they post.  You claim open-mindedness then refuse to read anything that might refute that the most ridiculous possible scenario of what happened happened.

I'm not here to post links or videos.  All the videos and forums our out there for anyone who has doubts to investigate.  I'm not trying to change anyone's minds either.  If you believe what you do, then I have no problem with it.

Yes, remote control jumbo jets.  How is that an unbelievable concept to you?  The technology is there.

I have read what everyone has posted.  Including your own.  You've not brought anything to this debate.

I can refute many of the ridiculous scenarios.  I refute the whole Vicsim thing.  I refute any link to Illuminati or NWO.  I'm sure there's more stuff I refute too but my dinner is ready and I'm planning on eating it.

Edited by manofmystery - November 20 2011 at 16:36

It's Andy's turn now:

I've watched Ripple Effect now.  It's all rather interesting, I must say.

I do have a few issues with the presentation though.  The narrator (not sure if it's the same guy who researched it all and made the video but presume it is) concludes a lot of stuff but doesn't back a lot of it up with sources.  He says such-and-such said this but doesn't always show a clip, or a newspaper/online source.  So us as the viewer have to just assume he's correct.  I realise he probably wanted to fit it all into an hour but I did feel a bit like he'd rushed through it a bit.

Secondly, he pretty much blatantly says that the mock terrorist threat that day turned into the real thing and thus then went onto presume all the non-terrorists didn't know they were involved in a real event and didn't show any proof of this.

I still see much evidence of an inside-job though, I just feel his presentation could have been better.  I shall probably now end up looking into some of the stuff mentioned and try and find sources to back these things up.


Edited by James - November 20 2011 at 17:16

manofmystery wrote: If you'd have looked at the Cracked article with your "open" (yet seemingly empty) mind then you'd be aware of the motives.  Grasping for strings of evidence to support a story that was fictional to begin with is pathetic but not as pathetic as people buying it.  You remind me of Karl Pilkington, James.  I can see you and him out there looking for the chimp doctor he read about.

Your continued ugly comments are out of line and completely unnecessary--  might I add James has been nothing but civil.   Why don't you stop relying on personal insults and argue like a man.

Atavachron wrote: manofmystery wrote: If you'd have looked at the Cracked article with your "open" (yet seemingly empty) mind then you'd be aware of the motives.  Grasping for strings of evidence to support a story that was fictional to begin with is pathetic but not as pathetic as people buying it.  You remind me of Karl Pilkington, James.  I can see you and him out there looking for the chimp doctor he read about. Your continued ugly comments are out of line and completely unnecessary--  might I add James has been nothing but civil.   Why don't you stop relying on personal insults and argue like a man.