Osama Bin Laden Dead!

[Guest ttfn]

Question for El Empty:

Of the conspiracy theories you bring up on here, what percentage do you think are true? 100?

I'm just wondering because I find conspiracy theories fascinating, often if only to laugh at. I'd say I believe none of them, although I could see why people do believe them.

I guess my point is that I understand why you'd want to spread such messages - it's crucial that you challenge what you're told to accept. But is it just that or do you genuinely believe that these conspiracy theories are true/more likely to be true than the official version of events.

JFK?

9/11?

Osama?

Real/Barca?

All real?

[BoneDog]

The problem is the people spouting them have double standards. They will only accept concrete evidence from the powers that be (or at lest they say they would). But they are willing to accept rumour, half truths, twisted facts, debatable science etc from anyone who says what they want to hear.

Until you judge both arguments using the same yardstick you aren't impartial.

You yourself don't judge both arguements using the same yardstick, give me a break! I reckon that you know hardly anything about the other side of the coin. Don't try and pretend that you spend alot of your time on this subject because I bet you don't. I would hazard a wild guess that the maximum amount of your life you spend even thinking about this stuff, let alone reading or researching, is less than 3 hours a fortnight!

Have you even read one book that is questioning the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report, for example? And if you haven't I can't see how you can talk about others ability to judge both arguements.

You just seem to want to lump everybody who questions any official story of a major event into a category that, frankly my dear, I find insulting! (if I'm wrong on this matter I will hang my head in shame)

[marko]

The plane fuel burned up very, very quickly and can't sustain or get near a high enough temperature fire for anywhere near long enough to start melting steel.

And the buildings were strong enough to withstand whatever happened above impact zone.

The steel didn't need to melt for the structure to fail. Jet fuel burns at around 1500c which is more than enough for the steel beams structure to be compromised causing it to twist, contort and lose strength. With the heavy load above it it was inevitable the weakened steel would give way and collapse.

Have a read of this 9/11 Debunked

But i'm sure it was probably written by some Government/NWO funded lap dog

[BoneDog]

ttfn - I'll answer soon, I'm still catching up and trying to do it in order

[Trav Le Bleu]

You're not fooling anyone you know.

[BoneDog]

The steel didn't need to melt for the structure to fail. Jet fuel burns at around 1500c which is more than enough for the steel beams structure to be compromised causing it to twist, contort and lose strength. With the heavy load above it it was inevitable the weakened steel would give way and collapse.

Have a read of this 9/11 Debunked

But i'm sure it was probably written by some Government/NWO funded lap dog

You're right, the steel might have possibly started to twist and contort, but it certainly wouldn't have just collapsed into dust. And it certainly wouldn't have turned to molten steel that stayed on fire for weeks. Would it?

If the buildings did collapse due to the weight above the impact zone, it would have collapsed all over the place, and never in a complete and perfect drop. Scientific fact

And can you explain why the USAF was grounded (orders from above, not the pilots fault) for that day only? Every other time they are ordered straight in the air. There are many examples of this and it happened over 60 times in early 2001 alone.

[marko]

You're right, the steel might have possibly started to twist and contort, but it certainly wouldn't have just collapsed into dust. And it certainly wouldn't have turned to molten steel that stayed on fire for weeks. Would it? Please don't tell me you think it would have!

If the buildings did collapse due to the weight above the impact zone, it would have collapsed all over the place, and never in a complete and perfect drop. Scientific fact

Oh yeah, and the jet fuel burned up within a few minutes. Another scientific fact.

And can you explain why the USAF was grounded (orders from above, not the pilots fault) for that day only? Every other time they are ordered straight in the air. There are many examples of this and it happened over 60 times in early 2001 alone.

I think you'll find your USAF answer in the link I provided.

Ok, so you say it burned up in minutes, but don't you not think the impact of a jet flying at a few hundred miles an hour, plus five minutes of fires at 1500c would be enough to significantly weaken the support columns.

There's plenty of peer reviewed papers for academic journals that make a farce out of the claims put forward by the conspiracy theorists.

The whole notion that this was some kind of 'inside job' is borderline laughable. I mean how many people would it take to pull off such an elaborate plan? and to think none of them have had an attack of conscience and spilt the beans? I'm sorry, I just don't buy that there's some kind of mass cover-up.

I don't know but you might want to a have a glance at this if you get the chance 9/11

[breadandcheese]

You're right, the steel might have possibly started to twist and contort, but it certainly wouldn't have just collapsed into dust. And it certainly wouldn't have turned to molten steel that stayed on fire for weeks. Would it? Please don't tell me you think it would have!

If the buildings did collapse due to the weight above the impact zone, it would have collapsed all over the place, and never in a complete and perfect drop. Scientific fact

Oh yeah, and the jet fuel burned up within a few minutes. Another scientific fact.

And can you explain why the USAF was grounded (orders from above, not the pilots fault) for that day only? Every other time they are ordered straight in the air. There are many examples of this and it happened over 60 times in early 2001 alone.

Just out of interest, how does molten steel catch fire? I'd like to see this and so would professor Brian Cox I imagine.

In your description above, did the steel turn to dust and then to molten steel? You don't say how it could do both simultaneously.

[marko]

You're right, the steel might have possibly started to twist and contort, but it certainly wouldn't have just collapsed into dust. And it certainly wouldn't have turned to molten steel that stayed on fire for weeks. Would it? Please don't tell me you think it would have!

If the buildings did collapse due to the weight above the impact zone, it would have collapsed all over the place, and never in a complete and perfect drop. Scientific fact

Oh yeah, and the jet fuel burned up within a few minutes. Another scientific fact.

And can you explain why the USAF was grounded (orders from above, not the pilots fault) for that day only? Every other time they are ordered straight in the air. There are many examples of this and it happened over 60 times in early 2001 alone.

Another point I was curious on was why exactly the building would fall "all over the place"? Surely to fall to the side it would have need some force from the side to displace it any other direction than straight down? Especially when you consider the massive weight from above and the force of gravity pressing down on an a weakened structure. If you consider the momentum of the floors collapsing on top of each other the only logical direction it could fall is straight down.

[BoneDog]

and what resources are there in Afghanistan?

Only about $1trillion worth of lithium, iron, gold, niobium, cobalt and other minerals. Yes, that's right, TRILLION! Lithium is a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and mobile phones and Afghanistan probably has the biggest amount of it anywhere in the world. So, inevitably, big business is going to get it's hands on it, by any means neccesary.

Vast Afghan Mineral Riches

Then of course there is the billion dollar opium industry, production of which has shot through the roof in Afghanistan since 2001. The Taliban had actually cut down the opium trade to something like 10% of what it used to be before they took power there.

[Finnegan]

Oh right, so you believe that they worked with him only to fight Russia and that was all. I believe they have been working with him right up until the day he died, whenever that was. It's hardly a big leap of faith to believe that when you know about the other murderous regimes we are still arming and funding.

Charlie Wilson was a rampantly left wing (by the standards of Texas politicians he was practically Che Guevara) feminist who campaigned for socialized health care and equal rights; politically he was a Democract paragon.

What exactly about his nature (other than, simply, the fact he was "a politician") makes you think he was funding the tapping up of Bin Laden's Mujahideen to be part of some ridiculous, long-termist strategy to establish a new world order?

And how on Earth do you even begin to claim that that's more realistic than, simply, exploiting an indigenous people to fight the Soviet Union for America in the wake of a catastrophic failure in Vietnam?

[Webbo]

Only about $1trillion worth of lithium, iron, gold, niobium, cobalt and other minerals. Yes, that's right, TRILLION! Lithium is a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and mobile phones and Afghanistan probably has the biggest amount of it anywhere in the world. So, inevitably, big business is going to get it's hands on it, by any means neccesary.

Vast Afghan Mineral Riches

Then of course there is the billion dollar opium industry, production of which has shot through the roof in Afghanistan since 2001. The Taliban had actually cut down the opium trade to something like 10% of what it used to be before they took power there.

The New York Times was reporting the final results of a study by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and a Pentagon task force, initiated in 2006.

We invaded in 2001.

[BoneDog]

And blow up embassies and fly planes into building. But you still haven't told me why America has to invade Afghanistan for opium when it can be grown in a hundred other countries with a similar climate.

The Taliban never attacked any embassies or flew any planes into buildings. I don't think they ever attacked anyone outside of Afghanistan.

And not long before 9/11 Clinton was supporting them. He gave them $40million and hosted their leaders on a visit to the US.

[Webbo]

The Taliban never attacked any embassies or flew any planes into buildings. I don't think they ever attacked anyone outside of Afghanistan.

But they sheltered Al Quaeda who did.

[BoneDog]

We invaded in 2001.

You really think that we didn't know about the resources a few years earlier? I bet there is evidence out there. You can use technology on satellites to predict where these things are, just like oil fields. That link I posted was just one I bookmarked a long time ago that was handy, but I bet that these resources were known of and discussed way before 2001.

Anyway, there are many other reasons, including future military ones why our soldiers are over there. Also, Brzezinski, who is one of Obamas handlers was talking about the oil pipeline through Afghanistan before 2001. They do plan years ahead. They didn't just start thinking about oil pipelines in Afghanistan after 2001.

[Koke]

Question for El Empty:

Of the conspiracy theories you bring up on here, what percentage do you think are true? 100?

I'm just wondering because I find conspiracy theories fascinating, often if only to laugh at. I'd say I believe none of them, although I could see why people do believe them.

I guess my point is that I understand why you'd want to spread such messages - it's crucial that you challenge what you're told to accept. But is it just that or do you genuinely believe that these conspiracy theories are true/more likely to be true than the official version of events.

JFK?

9/11?

Osama?

Real/Barca?

All real?

JFK, 911, Osama et. al we will never know the true stories. We can only speculate and try and add 2 and 2 together and try and expose their lies. At the end of the day, we know nothing. Either way. We get told things and I guess as an individual you choose to believe what you'd like.

The problem is anyone who dares question the establishment and not listen and nod to the state-controlled media is immediately labelled conspiracy theorist. Its as if governments dont have a long history of lies, deception, propaganda etc.

[BoneDog]

1. Neither North Korea, the DR Congo, the Ivory Coast, Pakistan, Chechnya nor Somalia hijacked passenger aircraft and flew them in to two massive super-skyscrapers.

2. Afghanistan was a statement to the world about "fucking with America". It was not a war about resources.

1. Neither did those 19 supposed hijackers, some of whom are still alive now. Neither did anybody from Afghanistan.

2. Now you're just havin a larrrrrrrfffff.

[Finnegan]

JFK, 911, Osama et. al we will never know the true stories. We can only speculate and try and add 2 and 2 together and try and expose their lies. At the end of the day, we know nothing. Either way. We get told things and I guess as an individual you choose to believe what you'd like.

The problem is anyone who dares question the establishment and not listen and nod to the state-controlled media is immediately labelled conspiracy theorist. Its as if governments dont have a long history of lies, deception, propaganda etc.

I have no problem with cynics and skeptics. I'm far from an easily duped goon, I take a massively cynical point of view on the press and I'm about 99% confident that even the most liberal, major, Western governments will heavily vet what they let the public know according to what they believe is the best interests of the state, no doubt.

For me the difference between cynics and skeptics and "conspiracy theorists" is that the latter become hugely entrenched in their beliefs and indoctrinated in the sub-culture so much that they eventually (as is the case with El Empty, from what I've witnessed) become complete and total hypocrites, accidental or otherwise.

Because what happens is that they become so determined that major governments are lying and so sure of their favoured sources that ultimately they instantly disbelieve the former and blindly follow the latter which is no better than the visa versa.

I would have infinitely more respect for El Empty's beliefs if he accepted that they were only theories and that there was ENORMOUS speculation and huge, huge margin for error in them. He doesn't. He brandishes them around like fact (see the post above this one) and dismisses commonly regarded truths (even truths broadly accepted by masses of leftist intellectuals and commentators) as fiction without any hint of humour, tongue in cheek or irony.

He's just as brainwashed as the people he bemoans.

Nb: I do otherwise think he seems like a smashing bloke and I respect his right to hold his views!

[Webbo]

JFK, 911, Osama et. al we will never know the true stories. We can only speculate and try and add 2 and 2 together and try and expose their lies. At the end of the day, we know nothing. Either way. We get told things and I guess as an individual you choose to believe what you'd like.

The problem is anyone who dares question the establishment and not listen and nod to the state-controlled media is immediately labelled conspiracy theorist. Its as if governments dont have a long history of lies, deception, propaganda etc.

You say we will never know the the truth but you do know that the authorities are lying, sounds to me like you have made your mind up as to what you think is the truth.

There's nothing wrong with healthy scepticism but you have to ask yourself these questions;

What is to be gained by lying?

How likely is it that a mass conspiracy can be kept secret knowing the amount of people that would have to be involved?

If the govt is so all powerful and evil why does it allow people to stick conspiracy theories on Youtube or publish books about then?

[BoneDog]

i've been on a secret mission for the last couple of weeks

thanks chaps

Have you got a picture of him or did you forget your camera aswell?!

Never trust anyone called Webster.

I trust you Webster. And the other Webster. You both seem like honourable chaps to me! So your theory doesn't wash

[zubi]

You say we will never know the the truth but you do know that the authorities are lying, sounds to me like you have made your mind up as to what you think is the truth.

There's nothing wrong with healthy scepticism but you have to ask yourself these questions;

What is to be gained by lying?

How likely is it that a mass conspiracy can be kept secret knowing the amount of people that would have to be involved?

If the govt is so all powerful and evil why does it allow people to stick conspiracy theories on Youtube or publish books about then?

By banning the uploads of these videos and books. Then that's pretty much a statement from them saying "yeh ok, we dun it"

[BoneDog]

No, I like stories that ate quite obviously true. Ones where there is NO evidence that it's all a conspiracy.

You can keep trotting put your like minded conspiracy theory videos. As has already been said you think the thousands of journalists, intellectuals etc out there that treat these ideas with contempt would do so if there was a shred of anything credible.

Don't answer, they are all pawns in a game controlled by above, they are all in on it etc. Yawn.

A fair few respectable journalists and scientists do question some official stories. I wouldn't be surprised if some journalists, scientists etc. were scared to speak out because we have seen what happens when they do. People have been fired from their jobs and quite a few who spoke out have died in very suspicious circumstances.

And as for the intellectuals, there are many who speak out strongly against countries foreign policies etc. but perhaps they hold back from bringing conspiracy talk into it because they know how their peers will react. That's probably why we call them intellectuals - because they know what not to say

The scientist / intellectual world is a very peer orientated community (if that's the right way to put it) and anyone who goes against the grain is demonised in their field whether they are right or wrong. That's one of my thoughts on it anyway!

[BoneDog]

No the cameras are set up perfectly to capture every single thing that had ever gone on before in the history of events at the pentagon or anywhere else. They were not however setup to capture a plane or anything else travelling at those speeds, why would they be?

It's like wondering why they weren't set up to capture heat signals after invisible aliens from mars, who give off lots of heat attack it.

It's an unprecedented event!!

They had hundreds of cameras there and I'm sure they would have had one frame with a plane in it if there really was one.

What about the fact that they knew this plane was heading their way? Surely that would have made them point a few of their cameras in the planes direction?

And there is also the fact of the missing trillions. Wasn't it Rumsfeld who admitted to $2.3 trillion of missing money on Sep 10th, one day before the attacks. The records of this missing money were destroyed in the bit of The Pentagon that was hit or WT7 (can't remember which building). Very convenient! Whoever pocketed that money has got away with it.

[BoneDog]

What about all the people there including fireman who refute what they say? You latch onto what you want to hear, these people are a tiny tiny minority but you believe them over everyone else because they are saying what you want.

It's nice to see that you are all resorting to name calling. I suppose not being able to back up your claims does that to people.

I've heard loads of firemen talking about explosions in the basements and stairways. And the way the buildings came down sways me into believing them. Buildings don't collapse at freefall speed. They only come down at freefall speed when it is done that way on purpose with controlled demolitions.

As for the name calling, I know you can handle it! I always try to do it in a light hearted way with silly quotes. And I hear a few names coming our way too, I'm quite fed up of being called a 'nut', amongst other unsavoury language

[I am Rod Hull]

Osama Bin Laden ?

Never heared of him...