it_is_the_light wrote on May 6^th, 2018 at 6:37am:


Mate, don't do that...

As a conspiracy tragic, when you play that card, it shows you've hit a brick wall against the person you're talking to.

You can't counter their argument, not even with your conspiracy, so you accuse them, some random nobody on the Internet (no offence Longy ) of being a Government Operative?

I hope you don't actually believe this because that level of paranoia is really unhealthy and causes even the most well intentioned people to snap.

I'd hate to think what someone of your predisposition would do.



Quote:


You mean the position supported by the evidence that is counter to the fact devoid nonsense you spout?

Quote:


That sounds like you champ.

it_is_the_light wrote on May 6^th, 2018 at 9:09am:


What evidence?

Can you perhaps finally answer this question, but do you even know what evidence means?

A guy sharing his conspiracy to a camera is not evidence.  That is his opinion, unsupported by the facts and not a shred of verifiable subject matter.

That is not evidence.

You do realise that right?

This is not abuse, this is a legitimate question then I hope you find the courage to answer rather than play the victim and abuse those asking you, like you ALWAYS do.

Now's your chance to stand up for yourself and do the right thing.

But you won't.

Prove me wrong, please.

Edit: I see you removed your video and reposted it here, and removed the word "evidence".

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1492213564/2859#2859

That's a start I guess.

it_is_the_light wrote on May 6^th, 2018 at 9:19am:

KangAnon wrote on May 6^th, 2018 at 9:25am:


All three buildings were a controlled demolition, buildings don't fall like that under their own mass, the concrete doesn't vapourise into dust under its own mass.

Engineers and Architects in the USA are now speaking out against the official sacrosanct story of NIST.

These guys aren't your average illuminate computer warrior conspiracy theorist nincompoops.

Ajax wrote on May 6^th, 2018 at 10:19am:


ajax , sad kangaroo doesn't look at the evidence ..

he refuses because that will shatter his mind warped interpretation of reality

Richdude wrote on May 6^th, 2018 at 11:13am:


You've failed occam's razor, but that aside, I'm not making a claim of either story.

I don't stand by either side of the argument.  One side is more plausible than the other, but there are holes in that official story.  I don't pretend the official story isn't without it's problems and that parts of it don't make sense.

BUT, to use the questioning of the official story as proof that the alternative conspiracy is true, that's just not right.

It still requires extraordinary evidence, or ANY evidence for that matter.  Misunderstanding of the facts or drawing wildly inaccurate conclusions because of a lack of understanding is not enough.

The number of people that would have had to be involved in a conspiracy of this size, and they've all kept quiet after all this time, that is far less plausible than the official story, hence the requirement of evidence.

Just because I'm not as quick as you to believe the conspiracy you're all in with does not mean I support the competing account of events.

I understand the science of much of what was involved and how parts of the official explanation are totally plausible despite common sense, or more actually "lay thinking or ignorance, disguised as common sense" but the incompetence of all the agencies involved to let these rank amateurs slip through the cracks is almost, almost, unthinkable.

But now we have Trump telling us how bad they are, it sounds more plausible. (jokes)

All it takes is one or two to slip through the cracks.

The Flight Training company at the time were happy to take the hihackers money and probably thought these silly arabs are just here for fun, of course take off and landing doesn't matter to them, who cares?

But in hindsight, or if the same thing was to happen now, that would send off huge alarm bells to everyone, staff, trainers and other students alike.

But we didn't think like that before.

I know as a Trump supporter, your world view has a chance of being infected with the "with me or against me" mentality, but try to rise above it.

You can talk about cognitive dissidence all you like, but I don't think you really understand the concept and are attempting to sound smarter than you actually are.

I've never said that I believe the official story, more so that I question the outlandish and unproven claims that the conspiracy theorists push as the alternative.

But I also question parts of the Official story too.

I'm only here because Light was trying to tie 9/11 to Mueller because he's shitting himself that Trump is going to be found guilty so he like all the other petrified Trump supporters are trying to discredit him by any means necessary.  It's poor form, but I'd expect no less from such scum.

It's like Light in the UFO threads.  He posts grainy out of focus video of what is likely a balloon in the sky then claims it's a UFO, and then from there claims it's Aliens.

The object is unidentified, to him, so the discussion should stop there.  Making the jump from "I don't know" to "It must be aliens" is very similar to "I don't believe the official story, therefore the conspiracy must be true".

No.

It needs to be true, not true by default.

A healthy dose of skepticism is important, but taking it too far into the realm of paranoia and conspiracy is worse than accepting the official story blindly.

Richdude wrote on May 7^th, 2018 at 1:18am:


But at the same time, there are some less than conspiracy explanations to the above.

Although, I've not heard about, or looked into the landing gear claim.

Captain Caveman wrote on May 8^th, 2018 at 10:05am:


They actually can.  Not only did both of the planes involved with WTC not exceed their maximum maneuvering speed but only their maximum operating speeds which is a limit to prevent over stressing of jet airframe.

It doesn't mean the aircraft can't go that fast or if they do, will instantly break up (as I've seen others claim). 

It just means the airframe may be over stressed, which will compromise safety at some point in the future.

It's unlikely the hijackers were concerned about that.

Yes there might be some YouTube videos from pilots who make other claims, but look up the engineering information of these aircraft, not just the opinion of someone on YouTube that you agree with, who didn't offer any facts to back up their claims.