BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Jul 13 - 05:02 PM

Bill, same thing with Zimmerman.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 26 Jul 13 - 04:38 PM

True. There were after all 206 votes for reform of the NSA. Only out voted by 11.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jul 13 - 03:45 PM

ahh.. the "Red Queen syndrome" personified! (Thru the Looking Glass)

One 'needs' to assume the worst possible scenario for anything any government or representative of it does or 'power' they seem to have...so one invents stories, facts and adds hypotheses based on those assumptions... then "runs ever so fast, just to stay in the same place" and interprets ALL subsequent laws, edicts, bureaus and decisions to fit their prior reasoning. Never mind that sometimes we get lucky and manage to elect someone who is trying to reverse stupid trends.... that must just mean they are cleverer at hiding their evil intent!

(why do doomsday prophets suddenly come to my mind? ;>))

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Red Queen
Date: 26 Jul 13 - 01:51 PM

GUEST, before starting any war, public opinion must be considered and swayed if all possible. Don't get me wrong, if they're going to do it, they'll do it, but they like to have the support of the public. Fascists, what can I say?

Lighter, a "worrisome trend" becomes conspiratorial when the Military-Industrial Complex becomes more and more powerful and more secretive. They will of course claim that what they are doing is for our benefit, naturally. They are protecting us and our interests. Not true. What they are doing is for their OWN benefit. They are doing THEIR thing- war mongering, manipulating, policing and dominating within and without the US, not to mention making a killing on weapons technology- all at our expense.

Be real. What would anyone need with "facts" at this point? All you need to know at this point is that they are spying, lying and in general turning us into the Evil Empire whether we like it or not. Every once in a while you get an insider, a whistle blower to tell you what you already knew. So why would you waste your time speculating on details? No matter who is responsible for 911, the government seized the moment to transform itself into a tyranny. You are not experiencing that just yet but the framework is solidly in place. The unconstitutional powers are there. They wouldn't be there if they didn't plan to use them at some point in the future...

So don't worry about planes and girders and rivets, ok? It's not important. The important thing is that you understand what kind of people are in charge and why that means we're fucked. That's all you need to know. Now go have fun while you still can.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 02:50 PM

The whole idea that 9/11 was an "inside job" so that Bush could start two wars, pass the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act, and a host of other "anti-American" things doesn't take into account that the US Government does things all the time that are against the will of the American people without resorting to killing of civilians. All Bush had to do was go on TV and claim whatever he wanted to support whatever agenda he wanted to execute. It didn't take the deaths of 3000 people to garner support for the invasion of Iraq - all it took was him ( and Colin Powell) saying Hussein had yellowcake and voila, Iraq war here we come. Actually, as all this terrorist stuff is "top secret," the government can make up anything to support whatever agenda and the citizens have no option other than to accept it as truth because it can't be verified ostensibly one way or the other due to its "classification." That's a handy little tool to have in one's arsenal whenever an especially attractive or lucrative agenda rears its head.

Or, more recently, the US government doesn't have to do anything if it wants to quash action on a popular notion. The majority of Americans support stricter gun legislation but Congress seems unable to respond. But mention the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" and the Pentagon and the NSA and the CIA get whatever lethal toys are on their Christmas list, regardless of budget concerns or party philosophy.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 12:26 PM

A conspiracy can be dreamed up to explain *anything.*

9/11? My vote is with the Gods of Olympus.

That's how the Greeks would have explained it. Proof? Look what they did to Troy.

It's obvious. Don't believe in the Gods of Olympus? *Your* problem.

First the WTC, then Hurricane Sandy. When we will ever learn? When will we ever learn?

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 11:47 AM

"So in general I have the right to hold an opinion ...... .Am I allowed speculate on the basis of my opinions?"

Ummm...sure. But your speculations and opinions are couched in that type of semi-reasoning and rhetorical questions that make it difficult to discern whether they are half sarcasm or total piss-take. Yellowcake? Sure... hidden away like the 100 MPH carburetor. Everyone knows it must exist because it IS so well hidden.
I suspect that because there have been some famous conspiracies, it has become a knee-jerk reaction for many to attribute ANY major incident to a conspiracy..... makes a better story, and they get press by continuing to counter facts by inventing even MORE complex stories to re-explain the inconvenient facts. When that fails, they just revert to restating the same assertions they began with... which shows how "melting beams" and "early BBC reports" and "missles at the Pentagon" continue to pop up long after they have been refuted. They seem to hope...or count on... folks just getting tired of RE-refuting the same theory for the 27th time.

Ah well... it's a hobby......

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: mayomick
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 11:03 AM

It should be obvious to anyone who isn't sat in front of a computer screen all night every night dreaming up reasons to hate the United States that the Saddam yellow cake did exist . It was there all along, it's just that it was very well hidden so we couldn't find it . Which just goes to show how clever saddam was and why it was right to go in and kill a million Iraqis to save them from the likes of Saddam and his yellowcake uranium wmd . Moreover evidence points strongly to the fact that Saddam had saved some of his WMDs to give to his fellow freed-hater, Bashir Assad.It's all part of the same terrorism wmd nexus business , but please note I didn't once use the word "conspiracy" . I'm no whack job .

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: mayomick
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 10:46 AM

So in general I have the right to hold an opinion -thanks for reassurance on that Lighter .Am I allowed speculate on the basis of my opinions? Defenders of the ABC news version of whatever happens or doesn't happen should use the hybrid word "opspec" to denote dangerous speculation by people whose opinions do not concur with objective news reporting on US news media.

ABC ,Fox and other US news channels are sources of objective reporting. If there had been any sort of a 9/11 cover-up,they would have told us about it. Does any sane person really think that the NYT would have said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was intent on using against the American way of life unless the editors at the NYT had carefully checked all the evidence out? Was Colin Powell lying when he said that stuff about the yellowcake uranium powder from Niger or do the wack jobs think that the evidence he produced for its existence was based on some sort of a forgery ? Only a conspiracy theorist would think such a thing but one fact that the loons always conveniently chose to ignore is that the head of the CIA at the time George Tenet also said that this uranium existed ! Who else do they want to drag into their sad fantasies -George Bush , Tony Blair?

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 09:34 AM

Ike didn't say it was a conspiracy.

He just said it was happening, basically because of the industrial demand for senior ex-military officers, who knew how to manage, lead, organize, and lobby.

A worrisome trend is not a conspiracy.

In general, everybody has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own so-called facts.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: mayomick
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 09:30 AM

One of these conspiracy nuts tried to tell me last week that "they" were listening in on all cross Atlantic telephone conversations. It just goes to show how deranged these 'spiracists really are!

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: mayomick
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 09:22 AM

Next minute these conspiracy loons will be telling you the government's reading all your emails ! What next , exploding cigars? It's not a new madness we're dealing with here either. Even before the various Castro and Kennedy conspiracy theories came out, way back in the nineteen fifties some old wierdo guy was spouting on about there being what he termed a military/industrial complex trying to take over control of America. Imagine how embarrassing it would have been if the Martians had landed and said take me to your leader and you had to tell 'em that this whako Ike was the leader!

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Red Queen
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 09:05 AM

OMG SPB! I thought I was the only one who knew that!

And don't forget how JFK was co-piloting with Marilyn Monroe on his lap.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 08:01 AM

Anyway I though everyone knew that 9/11 was caused by Bush paying Elvis Presley to fly his biplane which he kept on the moon into the side of the building to create the illusion of the two airliners.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: mayomick
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 07:39 AM

I guess you're sort of stuck with it

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 06:47 AM

No wait Lighter. We really need your expertise on this project. We'll get you some babes. What do you want? Blondes? Redheads?

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 03:48 PM

No babes?

Guess I'll stick with the 9/11 Commission.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: mayomick
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 03:45 PM

Yes, just my very own 'opinionated speculation'. If I were to start from there and spin a theory out of it that I'd expect people with different opinions to my own to believe ,and were I to be only open to such evidence that supported my opinionated speculation then I'd be a conspiracy theorist.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 02:10 PM

Mayomick's post is the biggest load of dingo's kidneys I've read in a long time, and there have been some real doozies on this thread alone!

Some folks get their jollies by running in circles and screaming, "Ain't it awful!? Ain't it awful!?"

We've got enough problems without these would-be Paul Reveres caterwauling at their computers. They tend to distract from paying attention to the REAL problems.

(Hmm! Maybe that's why their doing it!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 01:11 PM

I like it because it's got a conspiracy *and* a doublecross!

Can you fit in an AK-47 car chase and some bikini babes?

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 12:59 PM

""There is a school of thought that Jet A1 fuel cannot reach the temperatures required to melt steel unless supplied with excess oxygen.""

Do you have a credible source for that?.....Even if true, there is plenty of extra oxygen in the high speed winds which blow around buildings that tall.

No matter, it doesn't have to.

It only needs to soften girders until they sag (well below melting point under the load they carried), shortening the horizontal length and parting company with the supports. Once the first floor drops it bursts the rivets on the floor below and thereafter each floor is hit by a load greater than the one before. That chain is unstoppable and is the reason why the building collapses into its own footprint.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 11:52 AM

mayomick.. Is that paragraph YOUR writing & opinion? If so, where did you find any justification for it? If not, it needs quotation marks and more explanation.

I ask because it feels to me like nothing more than 'opinionated speculation'.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: mayomick
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 10:55 AM

"the Bush Administration, they did not plan or carry out the act themselves, they let others do it!" Wouldn't that be a conspiracy, Don? It sounds like something out of The Manchurian Candidate! Here's my very own personal and speculative 9/11 conspiracy theory .

With relocation of industrial production to China ,far-sighted US intelligence analysts who hadn't formed their opinions from watching Fox News knew that the real US economy was collapsing - despite all the overblown stock bubbles and the soaring house prices .There was a political need to justify internal US repression and resource wars abroad .So something was planned to go off that day that would allow the Bush admin to announce war for abroad and draconian measures at home along the lines of the Homeland Security Act. The CIA thought that they had various Al Qaida operators - people they were working with at the time - onside for three plane hijackings . The deaths of say three hundred innocent passengers would be a small price to pay for a right-wing law and order and war agenda. The CIA have had a lot of experience in doing such things outside of the US -in Italy for instance when they blew up a train station and blamed the carnage on left wing terrorists. So the CIA thought they would give the same sort of thing a try in the US ,but the Al Qaida operatives were working to their own agenda on 9/11.They tricked the CIA by going along with the plans up to a point , but when the planes got into the air the hijackers flew them into the Twin Towers.


Songwronger: Is the defence of the Warren Report thing you linked to the first known use of the term "conspiracy theorist" ?

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 07:05 PM

Songwronger, just what am I supposed to be afraid of?

You counter my comments by posting yet another supposed conspiracy.

Why don't you try some other kinds of fantasy fiction. Maybe Roger Zelazny? I know a few people who are fantasy buffs and they seem to think Zelazny is real cool.

Don't say I never did anything for you.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Songwronger
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 06:08 PM

You're just afraid. That's only human.

Countering Criticism of the Warren Report

That's a link to the memo that deHaven-Smith mentions, where the CIA begins its campaign to label dissenters as "conspiracy theorists."

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 05:57 PM

Songwronger, do I need to educate you to the simple fact that letting someone else do something is NOT doing it yourself? One might be considered equally culpable, but as much as I disliked the Bush Administration, they did not plan or carry out the act themselves, they let others do it!

And NO, I do NOT support the government in everything as you claim, especially many of the decisions of the Bush Administration.

Are you incapable of trying to make your points without LYING about what other people say?

The sign of a very weak position.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Songwronger
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 05:42 PM

The fact that there was possibly some knowledge of the planned attack which was ignored makes the Bush administration culpable in the attacks, but they didn't DO it, they would be guilty of letting it happen.

Do you know how CRAZY that statement is, Mr. Firth? They let it happen but they didn't do it? Letting it happen IS doing it.

I know that you'll support the government no matter what it does, but at least you're willing to expose your insanity, and that's something in your favor. Delusions such as yours need to be seen to be believed.

An hour-long audio thing on Youtube. Shouldn't eat up as much bandwidth as moving pictures. Worth a listen:

9/11 Free Fall 7/18/13: Dr. deHaven-Smith and "conspiracy theory"

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 10:30 AM

"There is also the matter of the BBC reporting on the fall of WTC7 a half hour before it collapsed:"


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html

Several years ago, we went thru all the theories.... I posted till I was tired many clear explanations of the ANSWERS to conspiracies.

Put "building 7" into the forum search box and spend a few hours reading. As I said in one of those threads, it took me 2 minutes to find the answer to the BBC 'early report'.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 08:13 AM

A "skeptic" merely doubts.

A "conspiracist" actively seeks to prove an unlikely conspiracy theory through false logic and cherry-picking of evidence.

Assuming, of course, that there's anybody left who can tell the difference between sound and false logic, and relevant, irrelevant, manufactured, and distorted evidence.

Mudcat calls that assumption into question daily.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 08:31 PM

> We can't discount the possibility that Archimedes of Syracuse conspired with the Bush Administration.

Nah, that one would be crazy.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 07:34 PM

Wasn't Archimedes famous for screwing things up?

CLICKY

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 07:13 PM

We can't discount the possibility that Archimedes of Syracuse conspired with the Bush Admininstration when he forumulated centre of mass.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 06:49 PM

Songwronger, firefighters reported that the fires were virtually out? And when did they report this?

When the buildings started to collapse, they were still are emitting huge clouds of smoke and flame, so the fires were still going strong. And people were jumping out of windows, preferring to die quickly by falling to the street below rather that die painfully in a burning building. A Godawful choice to have to make, but there it is!!

And I have already explained that it wasn't a matter of melting rivets or girders, it was that many rivets and girders broke on impact. Several tons of airliner hitting the sides of the buildings at high speed can—and did—wreak a tremendous amount of damage. Some girders began to buckle and sag, as I've already explained (if you'd ever learn how to read), then let go, starting the "pancaking" effect.

And no laws of physics need be rescinded when the top section of one of the buildings heeled over. The bottom section OF that top section moved inward because the structure failed first on one side, then the whole top section fell vertically. To have done otherwise would have defied the Law of Gravity.

This is plainly visible in the videos of that building's collapse.

And again, the smaller "explosions" (flashes) that began further down AS the buildings collapsed were transformers inside the buildings shorting out—which DO produce a small explosion and an electric flash. This I already explained, again if you had bothered to read it (break out your first grade "Dick and Jane" reader and bone up a bit). Large buildings have many transformers inside of them. Transformers of that same type are all over city neighborhoods, and if you look up, you can see them, looking a bit like garbage cans, attached near the tops of power poles. Sometimes one of these transformers shorts out with a flash and a loud "BANG!" during a thunderstorm, cutting power to a whole string of houses. The electrical needs of buildings the size of those at the World Trade Center are much like those of several neighborhoods, hence the transformers.

Basic!

No, the buildings at the World Trade Center collapsed as a result of being impacted by large aircraft flying into them. Sufficient cause in and of itself.

And there is matter of the plane hitting the Pentagon, and the fourth plane that a bunch of courageous passengers brought down by attacking the highjackers (this was reported by those receiving cell phone calls from those passengers), otherwise the Capitol Building or the White House might ALSO have fallen victim to a similar fate as the WTC.

But what the hell's the use of trying to explain these basic things to YOU, Songwronger, when you WANT to believe the conspiracy baloney?

Don Firth

P. S. And yes, SJL, I am familiar with the Project for the New American Century. And yes, they were influential in Bush's responding to an attack by al Qaeda under Osama bin Laden by blaming Saddam Hussein for it, despite the fact that Hussein and bin Laden were enemies (which, above, I likened to responding to Pearl Harbor by invading Brazil).

The PNAC was composed of Bush's puppet masters. BUT, the attack on the WTC was an al Qaeda operation. The fact that there was possibly some knowledge of the planned attack which was ignored makes the Bush administration culpable in the attacks, but they didn't DO it, they would be guilty of letting it happen.

'Scuse me, Commander Bzplxtpfng is telling me that our flying saucer is taking off to return to Arturus 12 and I have to get back on board.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 05:51 PM

Covers up are evidently conspiracies. Often the cover up is a lot more significant than the original reason for it. Watergate was a case in point.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 05:46 PM

If a theory about conspiracy seems daft to you, call it a daft theory". If it seems credible you call it a "credible theory". If it seems demonstrably false call it a "false theory". And so forth. Seems pretty simple to me, Lighter.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 05:45 PM

Hillsborough was a cover-up to hide incompetence. That isn't a consiparcy theoryn - if it was then the deaths occurred because of some insiduous purpose that someone wanted to achieve. iei SOmeone conspired to cause the deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 05:45 PM

If a theory about conspiracy seems daft t you, call t a daft thory theory". If it seems credible you call it a "credible theoory". If it seems demonstrablyt false theory call it a "false theory". And so forth. Seems pretty simple to me, Lighter.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 05:30 PM

Don, I'm sure you know more about the Greek philosophers than I do. I certainly have not read all of Aristotle.

And I'm sure you all remember what astounding international success Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 911 was. What was that about, huh? I think more than anything else, it spoke to a profound mistrust of the Bush Administration. Has anyone ever heard of a "think tank" called Project for a New American Century? Founded by Dick Cheney. These are the people who crafted the Bush Administration's foreign policy.

Do I, after reading up on that crew, conclude that they would allow 911 to happen in order to gain the pretext to implement as much of their radical agenda as possible? Sure. Could they have even have had a hand in it? Again, sure. Because they a callous group of war mongering bastards. If this means I have to wear a tin foil hat, then oh well.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9sg_NRC8ozk&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D9sg_NRC8ozk

Songwronger, I'm very crafty. I'll make one for you too :-)

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 03:50 PM

Skepticism?

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 03:33 PM

Technically you're right, McGrath.

If you can think of a more appropriate two-word phrase, we should try to promote it.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 01:39 PM

Once again all the accounts of what happened with 911 are conspiracy theories, including the officially accepted one.

It makes sense to denounce particular theories as junk, but we shouldn't ever use the term " conspiracy theory" as if it meant the same thing as junk.

Much of the time the offcial theory may well be the closest to the truth. But not always. Often it happens when secret papers are published years later it turns out that in very important aspects the official account was significantly misleading. We should always be open to the possibility that we are being told lies.

For example in England, it is now clear that the official account of the Hillsborough Disaster was a tissue of lies, signed up to by the highest authorities, involving large numbers of police officers knowingly cooperating in backing up the lies.

Misusing the term "conspiracy theory" in this way just makes it too easy for the authorities to avoid dealing seriously with serious misgivings.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 08:33 AM

Don't forget, DMG, that they also hit the Pentagon and the fourth plane was evidently head toward the Capitol or the White House.

Had the fourth plane hit Congress in session, the destruction of the WTC would have seemed almost like an afterthought.

Which raises the question, once the alleged Bushite plotters had decided to blow the Pentagon, why even bother with an immensely more complicated plan to destroy the WTC as well? ('Spiracists also claim that the fourth plane was just additional "cover." Why would they need that? Of course, some say it was just a coincidental crash that the evil ones pounced on for added publicity.)

The Pentagon alone would have given plenty of justification to attack al-Qaeda, and as DMG suggests, a lesser plot would have meant a far smaller chance of detection. (No demolition experts secretly placing shaped charges that "investigators" could later suss out, etc., etc.)

'Spiracists may not be "insane," but their 9/11 theories certainly are.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,DMG
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 03:10 AM

For any conspiracy, it is worth thinking about the planning session right at the start. Ask the questions what were the aims and of the literally thousands of possibilities, does this stand out as the safest/lost effective/least risk ... In short, the front runner. Now it seems to me that the twin towers from the terrorist view was low risk in terms of detection and set-up, since relatively little needed to take place on US soil. However, back then, there were lots of other possible targets where the effect was more predictable. The destruction of the Lincoln Memorial for example, would strike at a major symbol of what in means to be American in a way that a couple of banking offices might not. I'm not at all convinced that someone unconstrained by the risk of detection would have made the same choice

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 12:03 AM

I don't have the time to answer your questions in detail at the moment, Songwronger, but the melting of girders and rivets was NOT what brought down the buildings. There were many factors involved. But shaped charges were not among them.

Let me ask you this: are you an architect?

I didn't thing so.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Songwronger
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 11:38 PM

I am sorry, Mr. Firth, but your girder argument fails to convince. Firefighters reported the fires were virtually out. They only needed a couple more hoses to complete the job, and then the buildings began falling. How could fires melt steel but not firefighters?

And who changed Newton's laws of physics to stop the top of WTC 2 from continuing over in its sideways fall?

http://beyondpoliticsand911.com/photogallery/albums/userpics/10001/WTC_2_collapse_2.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/docs/wtc2_tilt_plannorth.png

There is also the matter of the BBC reporting on the fall of WTC7 a half hour before it collapsed:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7Bqr1I5gzyk/S9MZ0BDA2MI/AAAAAAAAEYA/DSJS-XXSGac/s400/a352361_po-1.jpg

It seems you never heard a government lie you didn't like.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Iain
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 04:05 PM

I do not believe conspiracy theories are factual, any more than I believe the MSM are factual. Both offer a version of perceived reality.
Some conspiracy theories I find ridiculous, elements of others I find have merit. With mainstream media I have problems with items being censored and events reported frequently having an element of spin added.
In summary I find some MSM news reasonably accurate and some conspiracy theories quite believable.
      I have the box of cookies in front of me, how I select to partake of them is my choice, based on my powers of logic and reasoning. I may be right, I may be wrong but to accept blindly everything on offer, is an insult to a rational being.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Wesley S
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 02:56 PM

Aside from that it's about time that we admitted that all of the conspiracies are true. Oswald didn't act alone. Nessie and Big Foot are real. UFO's exist. 9/11 was an inside job. Paul is dead and Jim Morrison is alive. The Pope is Catholic. Diana is alive. Wild bears shit in the woods. The government is coming for your guns. And Obama is a Muslim, the Antichrist and he really was born in Kenya.

It's just too much work to go on fooling them any longer. They're just too smart for us. It's time to admit they are right and start rounding them up for the concentration camps.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Wesley S
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 02:48 PM

"There is a school of thought that Jet A1 fuel cannot reach the temperatures required to melt steel unless supplied with excess oxygen."

Please realize that steel fails long before it melts. The melting temp is not a factor at all. What needs to be looked at is the temp at which the steel fails to perform under the load that is required. I sold industrial metals for 16 years and I doubt that anyone ever asked what the melting temp of a metal was that I sold. Performance during stress tests - yes. Melting - no.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 02:14 PM

Iain, you mean a conspiracy theory can be 100% per cent factual while ordinary media information is not?

I learned about Barack Obama and Sarah Palin solely through the media. I assume they're real. I don't see why not, though a vast enough conspiracy could fool anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 01:58 PM

I'm of the opinion that the chronic conspiracy theory buff has an ego problem.

By buying into the conspiracy theory, they can feel that they are in the know. They "know" what really happened, and are so much smarter than all those other sheep out there.

No matter how asinine the conspiracy theory sounds in the face of the verifiable evidence, they cling all the harder to the conspiracy idea rather than admit that things really are exactly as they've been reported.

Sort of an adult (?) version of "Nyah, nyah, nyah, I'm smarter than you are!!" when, in actuality, they are the gullible ones.

They'll never admit it, though. They're delicate egos are at stake.

Don Firth