Forums | MacLife

As if there isn't a smurfload of conspiracy theories about that one. So that proves nothing.

,xtG
.tsooJ

Ok. Just Remember that J.K. Rowling revealed that Dumbledore was gay, and that one underlying message in Harry Potter is to always question authority. Never accept what they say without examining it.

Yea Im really not sure intubation is the appropriate procedure right here, sure I have an unstable airway, but whats your source for the ET tube being the way to go?

It's a mistake to believe that conspiracy theories are subscribed to based on a logical conclusion. It's an emotional state of mind more than anything else. Hence, believers are immune to arguments against their beleifs.

Metacell wrote:

There are tons of genuine conspiracies being comitted regularly against us.  Just get some genuine professional analysis before levelling charges.

Genuine professional analysis? You mean one of ... them???

I'm only sure I can trust Shnicky an myself. And I'm not 100% confident about Shnicky.

And in fairness to the conspiro-dudes, the Wiki link Dan provided says:

At 6:35 pm local time, the Boeing 747, in nearly a ninety-degree bank with its right wing pointing at the ground, plowed into two high-rise apartment complexes in the Bijlmermeer neighborhood, at the corner of a building where the Groeneveen complex met the Klein-Kruitberg complex.

In other words the wings didn't mark the building to the sides of the fuselage entry point because the wings weren't horizontal, they were vertical. So it's not very useful to compare it to the Pentagon crash.

JakeTheTall wrote:

Americans suck at conspiracies.  I understand the Turks do them VERY well, and other places in the developing world also have conspiracy theories about EVERYTHING.  CIA pretty much controls everything, turns out.

Not only does the CIA pretty much control everything, but like everyone who's run every conspiracy in the history of the human race, they execute their massive plots with apparently infallable perfection.

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

Americans suck at conspiracies.  I understand the Turks do them VERY well, and other places in the developing world also have conspiracy theories about EVERYTHING.  CIA pretty much controls everything, turns out.

Not only does the CIA pretty much control everything, but like everyone who's run every conspiracy in the history of the human race, they execute their massive plots with apparently infallable perfection.

That's 'cuz Americans are smarter than the rest of the world.

Yes, it's why the world opposes so much of America's foreign policy: toxic, virulent jealousy.

Daniel wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

And in fairness to the conspiro-dudes, the Wiki link Dan provided says:

At 6:35 pm local time, the Boeing 747, in nearly a ninety-degree bank with its right wing pointing at the ground, plowed into two high-rise apartment complexes in the Bijlmermeer neighborhood, at the corner of a building where the Groeneveen complex met the Klein-Kruitberg complex.

In other words the wings didn't mark the building to the sides of the fuselage entry point because the wings weren't horizontal, they were vertical. So it's not very useful to compare it to the Pentagon crash.

Oh, come now, you know better than most that as a matter of course, I don't pay a whole lot of attention to these things known as facts.  I saw the picture and drew my own conclusions. 

But you're hurting the cause!

:: docks Dan'l 23 conspiro-points ::

Daniel wrote:

Take a look at the picture, and note the distinctive lack of wing-induced damage to the building.

Pictures can be doctored, so I don't trust them as a credible source. However, having said that, there is more than enough information to prove your point. For example, the fuel used on the supposed plane that crashed is known to burn at a specific temperature, yet there were no such burn marks anywhere to be found at the site. Also, one of the engines found at the site was not from a commercial airliner, so how did it get there? Lots of good questions to be asked, but I wouldn't rely on just 'pictures' for any of them. A group of independent investigators and reporters (some of which have testified before Congress) have been researching this topic. You can find a lot of their documents and information by clicking here. There is also a book out written by Paul Thomson which documents a lot of the timeline information. For most people the best place to start is a video based on his book called "9/11 - Press for Truth". Chances are your library has a copy of it that you can watch for free.

All you have to do is connect the dots to raise questions. Following the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center a security company called Securacom acquires an $8.3 million contract to help provide security. One week before 9/11 the FBI schedules a routine sweep of the building for explosives, however their request is suddenly turned down and the building is never checked. Guess who turned down the bomb sweep and was in charge of the security company Securacom? Marvin P. Bush, the youngest brother of George W. Bush. Uncharacteristically the FBI never investigates. Oh yeah, almost forgot to mention, one of the planes involved in 9/11 - American Airlines Flight 77 - took off from Dulles. Guess who was in charge of their security (maintaining the airfield access systems, the closed circuit television systems, and the electronic badging systems) - That's right, Securacom, run by bush's brother. You can learn more by googling. Here is one article that I found, but for the most detailed information it's best to use the link for the timeline above. It has incredible detail and you are able to cross reference with it.