Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

Conspiracy theories

Lupi said:
I find it curious when someone claims to be a qualified expert in a particular field of endeavor then proceeds to post someone else's video as an explainer rather than provide a specific explanation themselves. That would suggest to me perhaps they're overestimating their standing and I'd advise they exhibit more humility.

Anyway, the topic of 9/11 is rather boring to me as 23 years have now passed. Its a quagmire as its been overcovered and any useful evidence and witnesses have long been dispensed with. Such an event would be far more difficult to carry out in the age of the smart phone and omnipresent CCTV. The only things we can be sure about are motives, who benefits, outcomes and who actually benefitted.
Click to expand...

You are ridiculous. Am I supposed to spend months modelling the collapse of the WT7 building and then more months making a video of it showing the mechanisms and another year writing a report before I'm allowed to reference works by others (more qualified than me) that explain how it occurred?

In that case I take it I can dismiss anything you reference in a tweet, video, document, report or news article because you didn't do the work yourself. Am I reading you correctly?

In any case I already made the opening gambit which remains unrefuted. The contention is the building(s) were collapsed via a controlled demolition. I explained how it was not possible. Anyone arguing that it was a controlled demolition has to provide proof of how it could be done given the vast amount of time it would take (months) to complete the preparation without a single person noticing. If you (they) cannot provide evidence of how this preparation occurred then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Provide proof there was a controlled demolition and then we can move forward.

There are more than 15 million engineers in the world. There are about 4 million architects. 3500 architects and engineers that have signed a petition represent approximately 0.018% of the total number of engineers and architects. Probably near the same amount of 'scientists' that believe the earth is 6000 years old.

In other words sweet fuck all. Holding aloft a website claiming these numbers actually mean anything is beyond ludicrous.

It's to be expected though. Mr troof seeker is the most pig ignorant person I have ever had the misfortune to come across in my life.
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
ummmmmm not disagreeing but it wan't exactly the most peaceful of places ... well... ever really.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah I know they've all been killing each other for 5,000 years or so however as it specifically relates to both recent Iraq wars the insurgency it created allowed the rise of unchecked terrorism both in Iraq and throughout the Middle East & throughout the world.
 
I am interested to hear johnsmith explain how they managed to spend months putting explosives into the Twin Towers without anyone noticing?
 
JS96 said:
I thought we already had a thread but no, they were the other ones with all the theory discussions.

So what really happened to Harold Holt?
Click to expand...
Cunt went for a swim in dangerous water and died.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muz
JS96 said:
I thought we already had a thread but no, they were the other ones with all the theory discussions.

So what really happened to Harold Holt?
Click to expand...
Still swimming mate looking to get between the flags
 
tsf said:
I am interested to hear johnsmith explain how they managed to spend months putting explosives into the Twin Towers without anyone noticing?
Click to expand...

Not only the twin towers. Also WT7.

And also amazingly they set the explosives off at the exact level of where the planes hit the buildings. (Different floors on the 2 buildings.) I'm assuming every floor was wired because how could they have known exactly where the planes would have hit. Doubly amazing because 2 giant fucking planes ploughing through a building didn't manage to cut any of the explosive wiring in the initial collision or the subsequent raging fire.

He'll say they planted them in the lift shafts. At least that's what I've read them say to try and dig themselves out of the hole. (Even so that would still take months.) Except the building clearly collapses around the perimeter first so that theory doesn't hold water either.

Windows popping out during the collapse on the lower floors?! That's compressed air from a billion kilograms of concrete and steel pancaking it's way to the ground.

Had to laugh at the 2 examples given of buildings that have been burnt to a cinder and didn't collapse. (Grenfell and the other one?) Were either of those hit by a plane? Were either of those steel framed? Yeah, didn't think so. (Both constructed of concrete.)

This is the sort of easily debunkable garbage this fool continues to post. Like I said it would take all day to refute all the misinformation in his first post. The idiot has to be trolling.

If you're reading this JS explain why you gave examples of 2 buildings that are constructed completely differently and then equated them with this discussion. Don't you have any professional curiosity?
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: tsf
The thing is, if it came out that some government agency was involved in JFK, you would not be surprised. But as it stands, there is no clear evidence, just conspiracies.

However, to believe that the US Government used explosives to blow up those buildings, you are not only really, really dumb but it's bordering on brain damage.

Not just the physical impossibility, cost, logistics, plausibility - but even the motive? Why? Any, absolutely any, motive that these lunatics appear to entertain could be much more easily achieved through ludicrously easier means than through this. It's frightening that people walk amongst us that are this thick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muz
tsf said:
I am interested to hear johnsmith explain how they managed to spend months putting explosives into the Twin Towers without anyone noticing?
Click to expand...

This 9/11 inside job theory, is not a "a hill I would die on" to defend.

By nature, when I hear an organisation like AE911Truth make assertions, I am just curious to understand their reasoning, and whatever facts and evidence they have to offer. It's just a curiosity for me.

In contrast, the gospel of Jesus Christ and his Resurrection is "a hill I would die on" to defend.
 
tsf said:
Nice for you to acknowledge that some of Muz's insights have swayed you,
Click to expand...

It is not difficult for me to admit that Muz has valid insights. The most brilliant, intelligent people in the world can be incredibly biased and fixed in their ways, closed-minded to new innovations.

Below is a graph for Everett Rogers "Diffusion of Innovations"
.Diff.png

By nature, all my life, I tend to be either early adopter or an innovator. To be clear, this is not a boast - simply because every personality type has strengths and weaknesses. And I fully an aware of the weaknesses that are inherent in this personality type.

By nature, an innovator or 'early adopter' is prone to trying out new things - AND not every new thing is worthy of permanent adoption. That's why most people aren't in this category, and most tend to be early or late majority.

Whereas, Muz would be "late majority" or borderline laggard maybe. To be clear, that does not say that Muz is un-intelligent. No. Most of society falls either in "early majority" or "late majority". Most people in this bulk of society are still able to live meaningful lives, in spite of not being innovative or being the first to try out new things.

I think I have said that people like Muz are "most people". What is wrong with that?

Indeed, if society were mostly made up of only innovators, it would be a mad-house, and unsustainable.
 
johnsmith said:
It is not difficult for me to admit that Muz has valid insights. The most brilliant, intelligent people in the world can be incredibly biased and fixed in their ways, closed-minded to new innovations.

Below is a graph for Everett Rogers "Diffusion of Innovations"
.View attachment 425

By nature, all my life, I tend to be either early adopter or an innovator. To be clear, this is not a boast - simply because every personality type has strengths and weaknesses. And I fully an aware of the weaknesses that are inherent in this personality type.

By nature, an innovator or 'early adopter' is prone to trying out new things - AND not every new thing is worthy of permanent adoption. That's why most people aren't in this category, and most tend to be early or late majority.

Whereas, Muz would be "late majority" or borderline laggard maybe. To be clear, that does not say that Muz is un-intelligent. No. Most of society falls either in "early majority" or "late majority". Most people in this bulk of society are still able to live meaningful lives, in spite of not being innovative or being the first to try out new things.

I think I have said that people like Muz are "most people". What is wrong with that?

Indeed, if society were mostly made up of only innovators, it would be a mad-house, and unsustainable.
Click to expand...

I like the bit where you addressed the core criticisms of your initial, and subsequent, garbage.

But of course you don't do introspection.
 
johnsmith said:
Of course, yes.

No lie can lead to a good end result.

The New Testament states:

"And if Christ has not been raised, ... we [Christians] are of all people most to be pitied." (1st Corinthians 15:14,19)​

If, for argument's sake, Christianity were in fact a total fabrication - and a Christian devotes their whole life to living according to the gospel - you might say, "no harm done, since it helps them be morally good people". But there are tons of alternate ways of living a moral life (if that were the sole aim, which is isn't) that do not require interacting with an invisible God. Hence, as the apostle Paul said, we Christians would be the most pitiful people. If there was no Resurrection, then Christians would be living in a delusion ... and, no matter which way you spin it, living in a delusion can never be treated as a positive.

Hence, whether Christ is the only way ... or whether Christianity is the biggest delusion ... all hinges on the Resurrection of Christ being literally and historically true.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think you need to do some research of the meaning of the term "sound reasoning". If and when you have done this and understand it, you should re-visit your answer above. At the moment, your answer falls into the "crock of shit" category, a category to which you very regularly contribute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top