9/11 dust contains explosives!!
- Thread starter 2 Zero
- Start date
A.) Hmmm.... I wonder why this highly explosive stuff didn't blow up when it was "supposed to", or at least amid the big collapse? :?
B.) If it was a conspiracy to incite the public and propel the US into a war, what was the goal? The US practically destroyed Afghanistan, and much of Iraq, yet STILL doesn't get free oil out of the deal, so what was the motive for that? To spend billions of dollars of government funds? What a genius plan!
C.) Please.....
B.) If it was a conspiracy to incite the public and propel the US into a war, what was the goal? The US practically destroyed Afghanistan, and much of Iraq, yet STILL doesn't get free oil out of the deal, so what was the motive for that? To spend billions of dollars of government funds? What a genius plan!
C.) Please.....
Here are all of the answers,
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
The first two minutes is gross but the rest will leave you asking a dozen questions about wether it's true or not.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
The first two minutes is gross but the rest will leave you asking a dozen questions about wether it's true or not.
You will never hear me say, "The authorities never lie to the public. They are always truthful and straightforward."
No, you'd have to be pretty naive, or an idiot, to really believe that.
BUT...just because the authorities don't always tell you the whole truth, it's an awfully big leap to go all the way to "they always lie to us".
As for Zeitgeist, I won't even bother to catalog here all the ways this makes no sense, but I will point to two sources from which you can spend many hours following trails and links which state the case much better than I can. Here are 2 good starting points:
http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080919035431AAz9qbQ
And the following point comes from the second entry:
There are those who defend the film because they believe that agenda+motive is more important than truth. There is a certain irony here since the film's overarching thesis is to be wary of those who would obfuscate the truth in an attempt to persuade others to their point of view.
No, you'd have to be pretty naive, or an idiot, to really believe that.
BUT...just because the authorities don't always tell you the whole truth, it's an awfully big leap to go all the way to "they always lie to us".
As for Zeitgeist, I won't even bother to catalog here all the ways this makes no sense, but I will point to two sources from which you can spend many hours following trails and links which state the case much better than I can. Here are 2 good starting points:
http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080919035431AAz9qbQ
And the following point comes from the second entry:
There are those who defend the film because they believe that agenda+motive is more important than truth. There is a certain irony here since the film's overarching thesis is to be wary of those who would obfuscate the truth in an attempt to persuade others to their point of view.
I'm sure there were traces of food in the rubble also, that doesn't prove they were having a picnic. There will be traces of just about anything in the rubble. It was tragic. Isn't jet fuel explosive? The conspiracy theories are beyond ridiculous, in my ever so humble opinion.
It's much more romantic to believe in a conspiracy theory than the simple fact that 19 nutjobs hijacked four airplanes and struck the Pentagon and the WTC. It's quite similar to the JFK assassination. Why believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone when you can believe that a conspiracy involving the military industrial complex/mafia/Castro/Santa Claus is responsible for JFK's death despite the lack of evidence demonstrating a conspiracy?
Liverpool
You do realise that most factories where dusty (i.e. flour, cement, pharmaceutical, etc.) environments are the norm, have signs up warning workers/visitors of the danger of explosion, and hence you are not allowed to take mobile phones or other ignition sources in with you.
PhilDZ4 said:Santa Claus, a terrorist? :x
I added Santa Claus for humorous effect. When the question of who was in the conspiracy to kill JFK it seems that everybody but Santa Claus is mentioned which is hilarious since we all know that the more people are in on a secret then the less chance it has to remain a secret.
Umm - consider the source of the "news" here.
I lived in Utah for close to 30 years before heading off to saner pastures and consider this newspaper and Bonneville Communications (it's parent company owned by the LDS Church) to be just about the least reliable source of information on the planet.
I lived in Utah for close to 30 years before heading off to saner pastures and consider this newspaper and Bonneville Communications (it's parent company owned by the LDS Church) to be just about the least reliable source of information on the planet.