Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Why People Believe in Conspiracies


  • Please log in to reply
144 replies to this topic

#121    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 March 2011 - 05:55 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 10 March 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

I take it that means you don't have an answer.
I have an answer but I don't care whether you think I have one or not. lol

View Postflyingswan, on 10 March 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

You claimed that a conspiracy to destroy the WTC Towers by flying aircraft into them would involve no more people than a conspiracy to destroy the towers by aircraft and controlled demolition, hide the involvement of the perpetrators and put the blame on someone else.  
Maybe you should re-read again because I never argued anything remotely like what you are suggesting.  :rolleyes:

What I said and will point out again is that if you believe that a plane can hit the towers and destroy them. i.e. Collapse without any explosives.

Then any argument that a demolition theory would require tons of explosives, many men to prepare or that it would take weeks etc etc is a logical fallacy because you believe it was achieved without any explosives.

Therefore any argument that it would require x amount of explosives, or require x amount of men, or x amount of weeks is instantly invalid unless you somehow believe that by adding explosives, it would somehow make the towers less likely to collapse. lol

View Postflyingswan, on 10 March 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

When I pointed out that this seemed implausible, you wandered off at a tangent, claiming a controlled demolition wouldn't need more than a single small explosive charge, presumably because the planes had already done a good job, but just short of good enough by a very small amount.
hahahahaha!! Talk about the wrong end of the stick!

I don't recall ever claiming that a single small charge would be all that is required because frankly I do not think the planes did a very good job on either tower and especially on WTC7. Hence the reason I support the possibility of a demolition theory because frankly without it, all 3 of those towers would have possibly stood.

View Postflyingswan, on 10 March 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

Do you really think that you have logic on your side?
Oh yeah because the reasons against a controlled demolition theory logically do not make any sense.

2 planes hit 2 towers and 3 towers collapse from fires, that's very logical innit?  :w00t:

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#122    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 10 March 2011 - 06:23 PM

View PostStundie, on 10 March 2011 - 05:55 PM, said:

I don't recall ever claiming that a single small charge would be all that is required because frankly I do not think the planes did a very good job on either tower and especially on WTC7.
When seeing isn’t believing...

  • Larry Silverstein is on the phone on the morning of 9/11 trying to authorise a controlled demolition of WTC7.

  • There is widespread foreknowledge from emergency responders and the media that WTC7 is definitely going to come down.

  • Explosions matching those of a shaped-charge are recorded on the scene.

  • This happens: -
    Posted Image

  • Larry Silverstein states, “they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

  • Melted steel is discovered in the debris pile.

And the logical conclusion of this, according to the official story, is not that WTC7 was intentionally demolished, but in fact that all of the above is irrelevant and it was fire alone which conspired to result in an extraordinary and unforeseen event that brought the building down.

How in the world has this conspiracy theory persisted in the mainstream?

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#123    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 March 2011 - 06:52 PM

View PostQ24, on 10 March 2011 - 06:23 PM, said:

When seeing isn’t believing...

  • Larry Silverstein is on the phone on the morning of 9/11 trying to authorise a controlled demolition of WTC7.

  • There is widespread foreknowledge from emergency responders and the media that WTC7 is definitely going to come down.

  • Explosions matching those of a shaped-charge are recorded on the scene.

  • This happens: -
    Posted Image

  • Larry Silverstein states, “they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

  • Melted steel is discovered in the debris pile.

And the logical conclusion of this, according to the official story, is not that WTC7 was intentionally demolished, but in fact that all of the above is irrelevant and it was fire alone which conspired to result in an extraordinary and unforeseen event that brought the building down.

How in the world has this conspiracy theory persisted in the mainstream?
You forgot to add that:-
  • Column 79 fails causing the entire destruction of WTC 7
  • Then in stage 2 of the WTC 7 building collapses, it falls at free fall speed without any resistance for 2.25 seconds.

And to answer your question, because the NIST conspiracy theories are perfectly normal even without any evidence to support their theory apparently!! lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#124    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 10 March 2011 - 06:57 PM

View Post747400, on 10 March 2011 - 05:22 PM, said:

Looked at from a purely financial perspective, it looks very colourful. But you also said " The most obvious place to look is the Middle East where the PNAC recommended an increased force presence to shape events in this strategically vital area."
Well, like I said before, that's hardly achieved all it set out to do, has it? Look how much influence the US has had over Gadaffi, about as much as Neville Chamberlain had over the situation in Europe in 1939. It's hardly given the US much of a strong and secure base from which to carry on the expansion of its empire. Apart from Iraq (and not even GW tried to make out that that was because of 9/11 - and that was hardly a walkover) just how much influence has the US had in that area. Iran doesn't seem to take very much notice either, does it?
I would call the new subservience of Afghanistan and Iraq quite an achievement.

And GW never tried to make out Iraq was because of 9/11?


  • “…there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq.”

  • “We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade”

  • “… there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.”

  • “Iraq is a part on the war on terror.”

  • “… a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America… ”

  • “… Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.”

  • “Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained.”

  • “Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.”

  • “The regime has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq... ”

  • “The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding.”

  • “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001… ”

Guess who?   :D

9/11 may not eventually have formed a part of the official case for going to war with Iraq but Bush sure did his darndest to present it to the public as a pretext beforehand.

And didn’t you know that Osama bin Laden is in Iran now?   ;)

Just remember this if/when Vice President Palin or whoever starts rolling it out.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#125    Admiral Rhubarb

Admiral Rhubarb

    Often Unsatisfactory

  • Member
  • 23,537 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hammerfest

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 10 March 2011 - 07:04 PM

Hmm, Afghanistan subservient? I'd say the jury was still out on that. :hmm:

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#126    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 10 March 2011 - 10:56 PM

View Post747400, on 10 March 2011 - 07:04 PM, said:

Hmm, Afghanistan subservient? I'd say the jury was still out on that. :hmm:
There are 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan right now.

The current President is a guy who worked with the U.S. even before 9/11.

I don’t think anything else needs be said.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#127    Admiral Rhubarb

Admiral Rhubarb

    Often Unsatisfactory

  • Member
  • 23,537 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hammerfest

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 11 March 2011 - 08:15 AM

View PostQ24, on 10 March 2011 - 10:56 PM, said:

There are 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan right now.

The current President is a guy who worked with the U.S. even before 9/11.

I don’t think anything else needs be said.
Well, exactly. Those 100,000 who are tied up in Afghanistan aren't going to be able to be used to do much else expand the American empire, are they? It's just a drain on manpower and resources, without very much in the way of benefits for the US in return (yes, people can say that they control a pipeline, or the poppy trade or so on, but really, how much of a return is that for all the effort?) It's hardly as if they can use it as a secure base for further expansionism, since they've got their hands quite full enough already. It reminds me rather of Napoleon's adventure in Spain.
Actually, I'm not even necessarily arguing that this proves that it was not engineered by the Neo-Cons; just that, if it was, then I'm really not sure how successful it really has been.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#128    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,781 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 11 March 2011 - 03:29 PM

View PostStundie, on 10 March 2011 - 05:55 PM, said:

I have an answer but I don't care whether you think I have one or not. lol
There, there, sure you do, and you'll tell the world real soon now.

Quote

Maybe you should re-read again because I never argued anything remotely like what you are suggesting.  :rolleyes:
You mean that post #43 wasn't yours?

Quote

What I said and will point out again is that if you believe that a plane can hit the towers and destroy them. i.e. Collapse without any explosives.

Then any argument that a demolition theory would require tons of explosives, many men to prepare or that it would take weeks etc etc is a logical fallacy because you believe it was achieved without any explosives.

Therefore any argument that it would require x amount of explosives, or require x amount of men, or x amount of weeks is instantly invalid unless you somehow believe that by adding explosives, it would somehow make the towers less likely to collapse. lol
hahahahaha!! Talk about the wrong end of the stick!

I don't recall ever claiming that a single small charge would be all that is required because frankly I do not think the planes did a very good job on either tower and especially on WTC7. Hence the reason I support the possibility of a demolition theory because frankly without it, all 3 of those towers would have possibly stood.
Oh yeah because the reasons against a controlled demolition theory logically do not make any sense.
The total lack of logic lies in your confusing what is required for the official story and what is required for the "inside job", and the above does nothing to convince me that you even understand that there is a difference.

If the planes and fires are enough, per the official story, you do not need a controlled demolition.

If they are not, per the "inside job" theory, then you need all the extra people involved in planning and setting up that demolition.  If the planes and fires are not just short of good enough, then you need a big set-up.

View PostStundie, on 10 March 2011 - 06:52 PM, said:

And to answer your question, because the NIST conspiracy theories are perfectly normal even without any evidence to support their theory apparently!! lol
I love the way that in consecutive posts you deny that an "inside job" would require more conspirators than the official story, and also claim that an "inside job" requires NIST to be in on it.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#129    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 March 2011 - 03:29 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 11 March 2011 - 03:29 PM, said:

There, there, sure you do, and you'll tell the world real soon now.
It's no secret Swanny, I've made the same argument for over 6 years sonshine. lol

View Postflyingswan, on 11 March 2011 - 03:29 PM, said:

You mean that post #43 wasn't yours?
Yes, post 43 was mine but you obviously got it all wrapped around your head and created an argument that I never made in that post or any other.

But then creating arguments is something of a speciality of yours? An imagination far wilder than any conspiracy theorists I've ever met. lol

View Postflyingswan, on 11 March 2011 - 03:29 PM, said:

The total lack of logic lies in your confusing what is required for the official story and what is required for the "inside job", and the above does nothing to convince me that you even understand that there is a difference.
hahahahahaha!! I notice you think there is a difference in what is required for official story and an inside job but that just highlights that you not a critical thinker and that you are pseudo skeptic.

Both require the same standards although your bias says otherwise.

View Postflyingswan, on 11 March 2011 - 03:29 PM, said:

If the planes and fires are enough, per the official story, you do not need a controlled demolition.
I know, but that is if you believe that planes and fires are all that are needed.

But that isn't what I believe.......lol

And you forget that in the case of WTC 7, no planes were needed!!  :w00t:

View Postflyingswan, on 11 March 2011 - 03:29 PM, said:

If they are not, per the "inside job" theory, then you need all the extra people involved in planning and setting up that demolition.
Yes, I know....but if you believe that no CD theory is needed, then one person could plant a small bomb and still achieve the same result.

Making your argument that all the extra people needed planning and setting up irrelevant because it can be done without it. lol

View Postflyingswan, on 11 March 2011 - 03:29 PM, said:

If the planes and fires are not just short of good enough, then you need a big set-up.
But I don't need a big set up by your own logic, you say that the planes and fires are enough, so if you believe that then no big set up is needed.

View Postflyingswan, on 11 March 2011 - 03:29 PM, said:

I love the way that in consecutive posts you deny that an "inside job" would require more conspirators than the official story, and also claim that an "inside job" requires NIST to be in on it.
Fricking hell........ :w00t:

I don't deny that an inside job would require more conspirators, but what I do deny is that it requires 10's, 100's or 1000's of people when all it could take is one person in the correct position to allow it to happen.

And where the ****ing hell did I EVER argue or even suggest that the NIST be in on it?? hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

WOW your imagination is amazing, cause I don't recall ever claiming anything of a sort but somehow that is what you have pulled out from your imagination.

Maybe the NIST did the best job they could with the available evidence they had? Like 2% of the steel, none of which was from the plane/fire effected areas and 0% steel for WTC7.

However, you keep bringing these strawmen up because it points out clearly to the forum readers that you are not arguing with me, but arguing with yourself. lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#130    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,781 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 March 2011 - 04:06 PM

View PostStundie, on 13 March 2011 - 03:29 PM, said:

It's no secret Swanny, I've made the same argument for over 6 years sonshine. lol
Must be getting depressing, all that time and you can't convince anyone.  Perhaps I'm right that you don't have that "smoking gun".

Quote

Yes, post 43 was mine but you obviously got it all wrapped around your head and created an argument that I never made in that post or any other.
You said in post #43:
I got to say I love the argument I often hear from fake-pseudo debunkers who claim that for 9/11 to be an inside job, it would require hundreds/thousands of people, yet in the same breath think that it was the mastermind of 1 man in a cave, given instruction to 19 of his men.
and you say now:
I don't deny that an inside job would require more conspirators, but what I do deny is that it requires 10's, 100's or 1000's of people when all it could take is one person in the correct position to allow it to happen.

There are obviously different versions of the conspiracy theory, because conspiracists can't agree on the details.  The "one person allowed it to happen" version is somewhat more plausible than most other versions, but it is these other versions that you and others support on this forum.  These other versions need conspirators for controlled demolition of three very large buildings, remote-control aircraft, spiriting away the evidence and covering it all up.  You argue for these other versions right here:

Quote

And you forget that in the case of WTC 7, no planes were needed!!
and here:

Quote

Maybe the NIST did the best job they could with the available evidence they had? Like 2% of the steel, none of which was from the plane/fire effected areas and 0% steel for WTC7.
By your own quotes, I am not making strawman arguments.  Your argument in post #43 is contradicted by your own arguments on controlled demolition and removal of evidence.  This is the point I made when I first responded to post #43, and you have been trying to wriggle out of the ludicrous position of arguing with yourself ever since.

Edited by flyingswan, 13 March 2011 - 04:20 PM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#131    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 March 2011 - 10:13 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 13 March 2011 - 04:06 PM, said:

Must be getting depressing, all that time and you can't convince anyone.
Depressing?? lol Why would I be depressed when you provide so many laughs for me as you continue on your path of self deception in the belief you are debunking. lol

View Postflyingswan, on 13 March 2011 - 04:06 PM, said:

Perhaps I'm right that you don't have that "smoking gun".
I'm sure if I showed you a smoking gun, you would claim it's a smoking kipper! lol

View Postflyingswan, on 13 March 2011 - 04:06 PM, said:

There are obviously different versions of the conspiracy theory, because conspiracists can't agree on the details.  
That's because the people you group and label as conspiracists are individuals.

And even the official story worshippers can't agree on the details either, I mean how did the towers collapse exactly?

Pancakes, Pile Driver, truss failure - Take your pick? lol

View Postflyingswan, on 13 March 2011 - 04:06 PM, said:

The "one person allowed it to happen" version is somewhat more plausible than most other versions, but it is these other versions that you and others support on this forum.
Why is the "one person allowed it to happen" more plausible than the "two persons allowed it to happen"? lol

And you haven't got a clue what I or others think? Remember you claimed that we conspiracist can't agree on the details. lol

View Postflyingswan, on 13 March 2011 - 04:06 PM, said:

These other versions need conspirators for controlled demolition of three very large buildings, remote-control aircraft, spiriting away the evidence and covering it all up.
No they don't....lol

People can be fooled or duped into doing something covertly that they are not aware of, so they don't have to be conspirators at all.

View Postflyingswan, on 13 March 2011 - 04:06 PM, said:

By your own quotes, I am not making strawman arguments.
Yes you are....lol

View Postflyingswan, on 13 March 2011 - 04:06 PM, said:

Your argument in post #43 is contradicted by your own arguments on controlled demolition and removal of evidence.
How so?? lol

View Postflyingswan, on 13 March 2011 - 04:06 PM, said:

This is the point I made when I first responded to post #43, and you have been trying to wriggle out of the ludicrous position of arguing with yourself ever since.
You are not getting this are you?? lol

It was never my position, do you understand this?? lol

The point was to highlight the ridiculous assertions made by people like you who claim a demolition is not possible because of the reasons I gave in various posts, you know...It requires x amount of men, x amount of explosives, x amount of time to plant them.......

Your theory requires no explosives making any reason why it's not possible a logical fallacy because 1 man, with 1 explosive in just 1 minute could destroy the towers by your own logic.

Not mine!! hahahahahahahaha!!!

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#132    Admiral Rhubarb

Admiral Rhubarb

    Often Unsatisfactory

  • Member
  • 23,537 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hammerfest

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 14 March 2011 - 08:08 AM

View PostStundie, on 13 March 2011 - 03:29 PM, said:

hahahahahaha!!
hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

lol


View PostStundie, on 13 March 2011 - 10:13 PM, said:

hahahahahahahaha!!!
I'm sorry, have you been possessed by the spirit of Dr. Evil?
By the eloquence of your argument, you're making a lot of converts to your cause, I must say.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#133    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 March 2011 - 02:32 PM

View Post747400, on 14 March 2011 - 08:08 AM, said:

I'm sorry, have you been possessed by the spirit of Dr. Evil?
No, I am actually Dr Evil. lol

View Post747400, on 14 March 2011 - 08:08 AM, said:

By the eloquence of your argument, you're making a lot of converts to your cause, I must say.
Why thank you 747400, although eloquence is not something I'm reknown for and I do not know what my cause is suppose to be?? lol

Naturally, you are focusing on the lol's and the hahaha's which is quite easy to do with my posts but it appears you have missed the whole point of the argument.

This reminds me of a fable about a man who was looking at a girl with her breasts out, he liked the look of the breasts and gave out the usual phwoar noise, then stop to take a look at the girl when he realised that the girl with her breast exposed was in fact his daughter.

And the moral of the story is......stop focusing on the breasts. lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#134    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,781 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 14 March 2011 - 03:57 PM

View PostStundie, on 13 March 2011 - 10:13 PM, said:

I'm sure if I showed you a smoking gun, you would claim it's a smoking kipper! lol
Try me.

Quote

And even the official story worshippers can't agree on the details either, I mean how did the towers collapse exactly?

Pancakes, Pile Driver, truss failure - Take your pick? lol
Try two detailed engineering failure reports.

Quote

Why is the "one person allowed it to happen" more plausible than the "two persons allowed it to happen"? lol
Because the fewer people involved, the easier to keep a secret.

Quote

And you haven't got a clue what I or others think?
I can only go by your posts, which I quoted.

Quote

People can be fooled or duped into doing something covertly that they are not aware of, so they don't have to be conspirators at all.
Very plausible.  "All you people engaged in the clean-up, make sure that if you find anything that looks like wires and detonators, put it in this box here."

Quote

Yes you are....lol
How can I possibly counter such an argument?

Quote

The point was to highlight the ridiculous assertions made by people like you who claim a demolition is not possible because of the reasons I gave in various posts, you know...It requires x amount of men, x amount of explosives, x amount of time to plant them.......

Your theory requires no explosives making any reason why it's not possible a logical fallacy because 1 man, with 1 explosive in just 1 minute could destroy the towers by your own logic.

There you go again, completely failing to see the difference between the two scenarios.

In your theory, the impacts and fires cannot bring down the buildings, so you need a big demolition set-up.  These are very large buildings.  This is where the "x amount of men, x amount of explosives, x amount of time to plant them......." comes from.  Your suggesting "1 man, with 1 explosive in just 1 minute" is part of your theory, not mine, in the special case where the impacts/fires are just not quite sufficient to bring down a building, and you say you are not claiming that.

In my theory, the impacts and fires bring down the buildings, so I don't need any explosives.  This is the theory that just requires 19 hijackers and maybe a few helpers. In my theory, "1 man, with 1 explosive in just 1 minute" would not bring the buildings down, because very large buildings that are not damaged by fires or impacts are not that vulnerable.

Quote

Not mine!! hahahahahahahaha!!!
Another unbeatable argument, I don't know how you think them up.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#135    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 March 2011 - 11:17 AM

View Postflyingswan, on 14 March 2011 - 03:57 PM, said:

Try me.
No thanks, for someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to accept the possibility that Dick Cheney arrived at the PEOC before the commission claims is always going suggest it's a kipper, not a gun. lol

View Postflyingswan, on 14 March 2011 - 03:57 PM, said:

Try two detailed engineering failure reports.
So which collapse theory does these 2 details failure reports support?

Pancake Collapse?
Truss Failure Collapse?
Pile Driver Collapse?

View Postflyingswan, on 14 March 2011 - 03:57 PM, said:

I can only go by your posts, which I quoted.
But you get my posts all wrapped around your head and argue point that I have never made! lol

View Postflyingswan, on 14 March 2011 - 03:57 PM, said:

Very plausible.  "All you people engaged in the clean-up, make sure that if you find anything that looks like wires and detonators, put it in this box here."
And why would people in the clean up be looking for wires and detonators? lol

You assume that in all the tons of rubble that these things would be found and that those in the clean up would know exactly what to look for.

Forgetting that those involved in the clean up were doing just that, cleaning up and not examining everything they picked up in the quick clean up operation.

And there were missing bodies that were never recovered or found either making your entire point moot.

View Postflyingswan, on 14 March 2011 - 03:57 PM, said:

How can I possibly counter such an argument?
By actually providing answers to the questions you are dodging.

It's very simple. lol

View Postflyingswan, on 14 March 2011 - 03:57 PM, said:

here you go again, completely failing to see the difference between the two scenarios.
I see the difference, the problem is you do not see the logical fallacy of your theory.

View Postflyingswan, on 14 March 2011 - 03:57 PM, said:

In your theory, the impacts and fires cannot bring down the buildings, so you need a big demolition set-up.
No, it doesn't necessarily need a big demolition setup, it needs a setup that would do the job.

That could be big, that could be small, that could be done in multiple ways as well.

And you prove my point in that you believe planes and fires or in the case of WTC7 fire alone can do the job, but somehow it needs a big demolition.

Maybe demolition companies should start using fires. Much quicker than setting up all those demolition charges. lol

View Postflyingswan, on 14 March 2011 - 03:57 PM, said:

These are very large buildings.
No ****.

View Postflyingswan, on 14 March 2011 - 03:57 PM, said:

This is where the "x amount of men, x amount of explosives, x amount of time to plant them......." comes from.  Your suggesting "1 man, with 1 explosive in just 1 minute" is part of your theory, not mine, in the special case where the impacts/fires are just not quite sufficient to bring down a building, and you say you are not claiming that.
Are you special?? lol

I'm sure I have claimed time and time again that this is not my position, infact I'm sure I posted that this is not my theory but somehow you want to conclude it is when all it serves is to point out the hypocrisy of your argumemt.

I don't think it would only require 1 man, 1 explosive or 1 hour to cause the building to collapse. Do you understand this??  :w00t:

The point is you believe that no explosives were needed, therefore any rejection that a demolition is not possible because of x amount of men, x amount of explosive and x amount of time is not a vliad argument because by your own theory, none is needed.

Therefore a logical fallacy.

I think it would take more than one man, one explosive and more than an hour to demolish the buildings because I do not believe that the planes and fire alone could do it, especially in the case of WTC7.

So there is no logically fallacy on my part and neither am I arguing that point.

Of course this goes flying above your head like the swan your name suggests....yet again!! lol

View Postflyingswan, on 14 March 2011 - 03:57 PM, said:

In my theory, the impacts and fires bring down the buildings, so I don't need any explosives.  
Here we go, stating the obvious in the belief you have a point.

I know you don't need explosives, that's the point.

If you believe that a demoltion theory is not possible because it would require x mem, x amount of time and x amount of explosives, then you are employing a logical fallacy because you have admitted that none are needed, so the reasons why it's not possible in your own theory are possible because one only of each would be needed.

View Postflyingswan, on 14 March 2011 - 03:57 PM, said:

In my theory, "1 man, with 1 explosive in just 1 minute" would not bring the buildings down, because very large buildings that are not damaged by fires or impacts are not that vulnerable.
So if 1 man, with 1 explosive in just 1 minute would not bring down the buildings, then how do you explain that no men, with no explosives in no minutes would still bring the very large building down?? lol

In others words, if no explosives are needed to bring the buildings down, then are you suggest that by adding explosives this would somehow make the building not collapse?? lol

View Postflyingswan, on 14 March 2011 - 03:57 PM, said:

Another unbeatable argument, I don't know how you think them up.
Well how is it my theory when I've stated many times this is not what I believe or what I am proposing, but to serve a purpose and highlight the logical fallacy of official story worshippers such as yourself...lol

Plane & Fire Damage & No explosives = Building Collapse
Plane & Fire Damage & Explosives = Building Doesn't Collapse

Do you not see how stupid your argument is??  :w00t:

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users