The Conspiracy Theories Thread(was: 911 Conspiracy theories) — Page 2

I say this with no disrespect to the memory of passengers and crew of those planes but when faced with this sort of situation the stress and bizarre horrific atmosphere often shocks people into a passive stance.

It was frequently seen during the holocaust and other horrific events that people who would normally fight back don't.

These behaviour patterns are covered by the unfortunate umbrella term SEP (Somebody Else's Problem).

Essentially a variety of points of view come to play where a group of people do not enter a fight for survival stance.

Some people assume some outside agency will save them and taking personal action would only make the situation worse (not just for themselves but also for the other people in the group).

Other people assume that taking action would be pointless.

Other people wait for a sign of leadership within the group which they can rally behind and will not be the first to act.

We also need to remember that up until this point hijacking a plane and turning it into a missile was unheard of, almost every hijack situation had ended in passenger survival.

C3PX said:

 

... you are trying to convince...

Wrong lead. I politely declined your asking to proove anything and I gave you the several reasons why: too much work notably (+ wrong forum), Bingo's right about it when he says "he's not going to right a book". It shouldn't forbid me to share my thoughts occasionaly. I don't have the time you have to write ten kilometers posts as you do (nor the mean), mostly when it'd took 5 x or 6 x more times for me to translate precisely my meanings.

But true that Internet is not the source I like to use for that, that's why I have no links, unless a couple in french.

Still I especially found a couple of links for you last day about the history of money these last centuries. Search about that and leave the 911 thing for a while.

Also, please leave off the attack position here.

PS, and for your consideration: it took more than 20 min for me to tip a correct post.

I mentioned SEP more in context with the other planes but I guess it could apply to the hijackers too.

What angers me about the security measures in airports these days (penning large numbers of people in one small place, making them hold a selection of objects in little plastic bags, having them partially disrobe in public and having them perform a digital strip search regardless of age) is that it's disproportionate to the risk and underlines the atmosphere of society under siege.

Isn't this giving the terrorists exactly what they want?

Hasn't it crossed the minds of the people devising these procedures that a few bombs in these security areas would kill hundreds, close down the airport and render the whole procedure virtually useless?

We are have our sharp objects taken away from us, toe nail cutters, nail scissors, disposable razor cartridges etc and are given canned drinks, glass bottles on the plane.

We can purchase all manner equally improbable melee weapons from the in-flight catalogue and have them brought to our seat by the steward or stewardess.

The 9-11 planes were taken by men with Stanley knives, they give us glass bottles but take away eye-brow tweezers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNK1V6S2cbo

Here is the BBC reporting that the Salomon Bros. Bldg. (WTC7) had collapsed.

...yet WTC7 is clearly visible in the skyline behind the on-location reporter!

20 minutes later, it did collapse in exactly the way she had prematurely reported.

1) The building had been weakened in the initial attack/collapse, and it was clear that it would collapse eventually.  The BBC had all the reports prepared for when the building finally did collapse, so they could talk about it right away.  The early reading of the report was accidental, much like when obituaries for celebrities who are still alive are mistakenly published (as they have them ready so they can report on it as soon as possible).

2) That's BBC, a British channel, not American, so it's not that odd that they didn't realize the building was still standing there.

I see no evidence of anything more than that in the clip you linked.

Here are stills.  The building touching her left temple in pic 2 is the 47-story WTC7.  Yet the caption says it's already collapsed!

ChainsawAsh said:

1) The building had been weakened in the initial attack/collapse, and it was clear that it would collapse eventually.  The BBC had all the reports prepared for when the building finally did collapse, so they could talk about it right away. 

Gee, "they" sure were confident!

What?  Of course they were confident.  It was structurally weakened, and it was clear it was going to collapse.

One of the main reasons for speculation is that the near free fall of the towers was pretty much a unique event, especially for buildings of that construction type, both of them falling in the same way was strange in itself but to have a building of a totally different construction style burning in a totally different way, fall in a very similar fashion adds to a plausibly uncanny situation.

When so many points of synchronicity converge it's fertile ground for building a narrative.

This is why the hysterical reactions to asking questions should stop.

Pretty darn efficient, huh?

Total collapse time: about 6.7 seconds, the same amount of time it would have taken a bowling ball to fall 47 stories.  In other words, free-fall speed.

This means the top floor encountered zero resistance from any of the floor or columns below, notwithstanding all that steel and concrete.

If that don't make you go hmmmm, I don't know what will.  Let's just vote new powers to the chancellor and forget about it.

Darth Id said:

If that don't make you go hmmmm, I don't know what will.

Well, it didn't.

I'm going to go back to not getting involved in this thread.  I'm not even sure why I did - I stay out of the politics thread for pretty much this exact reason.

When I think how peaky are the people about credibility when it comes to Star Wars films...

It's easy to be picky about fiction, fiction tends to be much more simple and a lot less painful.

ChainsawAsh said:

Darth Id said:

If that don't make you go hmmmm, I don't know what will.

Well, it didn't.

I'm going to go back to not getting involved in this thread.  I'm not even sure why I did - I stay out of the politics thread for pretty much this exact reason.

yeah, your wasting your time ChainsawAsh,  conspiracy nutcases will never be convinced.   Not matter how much evidence you offer to the contrary, they will continue to believe their ridiculous conspiracy theories. Its pointless to argue with them.

C3PX said:

.

YOU'RE WRONG!!!

TV's Frink said:

C3PX said:

.

YOU'RE WRONG!!!

You can't deny he has a point there.

Bingowings said:

TV's Frink said:

C3PX said:

.

YOU'RE WRONG!!!

You can't deny he has a point there.

His point is WRONG!!!

Warbler said:

yeah, your wasting your time ChainsawAsh,  conspiracy nutcases will never be convinced.   Not matter how much evidence you offer to the contrary, they will continue to believe their ridiculous conspiracy theories. Its pointless to argue with them.

 

Are you being, like, ironic, dude?

Or are you so dependent on ad hominem attacks that you actually believe them to constitute "evidence"?

If every alternate narrative for the terror attacks is BS one thing that definitely isn't is that successive governments, the media and the general blinkered stupidity of people is leading them to hand over their freedoms.

Thinking that the proportionately tiny risk of a terror attack can be placated by following these bizarre rituals.

There's very little stopping terrorists taking over a train and crashing that into a station or blowing it up.

Or just creating gridlock chaos by crashing cars on the motorway.

There were the Tube and Bus attacks in London but you don't have to pass your kiddies through the x-ray strip show machine to get onto the underground or pass the car through a scanning bridge.

And yet I have to leave my bag behind the till when I go to the cinema.

The foyer is usually much more crowded than the theatre what's stopping a terrorist setting off a bomb there and why do they take away back packs but let women take their giant handbags?

There's no rhyme or reason to it.

The last thing I'd do though is put guns on planes.

A stray bullet is more likely to bring a plane down than a nutter with a knife.

how much does anyone want to bet that Darth Id is either Bingowings or ABC?   I'll also bet vaderios, alphabetty spaghetti  are also Bingowings and/or  ABC.     Whatever the case, I'm putting them all on ignore.