Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
We seem to have another 911 thread going. Of course when talking conspiracies this will happen. I hope bringing up a diferent point of view doesn't get anyone's tinfoil in an uproar.
People who make shit happen don't generally do it hands on, they get patsies if needed, or operatives.
So let's get down to some empirical evidence shall we ?
1. The WTC suffered more damage, and/or damage in a different way than some experts say should have been. SOME, not all.
2. The Murrah building suffered more damage and/or damage in a different way than some experts say should have been.
I reject the one about the beams being cut to the rigfht length to fit on trucks, how do you think they got there ?
I reject alot of things, but I do not reject the seismic data related to the Murrah building bombing.
What I do not reject is that many buildings are equipped with integral explosive or incindiary devices for eventual demolition. It all makes sense. It makes sense because the gov is slowly but surely pissing off 300,000,000 people. It makes sense because it saves them money in the long run, in the absence of a revolt, and even during/after a revolt these devices could come in handy.
I am not saying I accept these things as fact, but possible. Many people have a hard time reserving judgment until they get sufficient fact. I prefer to let the events unfold. Not the perfect solution to say the least, but perhaps some kid will throw a rock one day and bring down city hall. Unlikely yes. Impossible ?
Imperical logic says that the only thing impossible to prove is the impossibility of something. Of course every rule has exceptions. Let's say we put someone in a big vat of battery acid. It would be so unlikely that they would survive that we would call it impossible. Repeat the test with seawater, of course using a different subject. Now just how impossible is it ? What if they were born a freak of nature and somehow could quickly adapt, grow gills or something to survive. Even that is a lot less impossible than surviving the acid bath.
Is anyone thinking of the other possibility ? Simply that the person knows how to swim.
So here come I, with my postulation about building being built ready to demolish. Even without sinister or ulterior motives this is not hard to fathom. In our throw away society this is really not a huge leap of faith. But do I believe it to be gospel ? Hell no.
Here's another card for the table. A friend of mine was working as a union bricklayer on the federal reserve building. They were told to go so far and then were temporarily laid off. This union is like a brotherhood and they are pretty sure nobody from that union worked on that building for a few days. When they got back, there was some bricklaying done miraculously.
Although I could build a house, I know little about the constructrion of large buildings. I am not drawing any quick conclusions, oh wait, I guess I am, but I am not accepting nor offering them as fact. A theory.
With the body of evidence I think OBL did indeed have something to do with 911. Even if you discard 80% of it as bullshit it is very probable that he was involved. That is not even proven, because the other empirical piece of evidence is extant. The fact is, all the perpetrators of 911 are dead. All they will ever catch is their comrades and co-conspirators.
However, there is nothing that can possibly prove that noone in the government sponsored or supported the act. Covertly of course, a rouge element ? Another mystery. After all there is strong evidence that the government sponsored the 1991 act against the WTC. Proven ? Not really. Possible ?
One has to be careful dealing with post hoc ergio propter hoc in these matters. Data are often distorted, whether intentionally or not. Therefore we must scrutinize all conclusions.
Here is the problem though, if you take the whole body of evidence of what the government does, well, I am beginning to smell a rat. Even just looking at the results of all that they do. What do they do ? They take.
One thing I do take as fact, and will put forth as such is this : The people running the world are insatiably greedy meglomaniacs.
Murrah and 911 are but two straws on the camel's back.
It is hard for people to realize just how greedy and nasty some people are. I differ from most in the fact that I used to be greedy. I understand it. Like some other vices I broke it, I broke the cycle. Greed is like a drug. Or it could be that money and power are the drugs, greed simply describes the addiction. It escalates just like any other addiction, with money and power being akin to a tolerance for an intoxicant.
Thinking in those terms makes alot of things fall into place. In fact, if you really do think long and hard, you can almost predict what happens next. Perhaps not a specific act, you can be sure of the general trend. Since the rich have the power over the government, it is logical to assume they will do what makes them richer.
The problem with the word conspiracy is who draws the line ? Anyone unaware of the cooperation between big business, the major media and the government must have been living in a hermetically sealed container on Funk and Wagnall's porch. Is that a conspiracy or not ?
Big business, major media and the government spend every day lying to us and taking from us.
It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't take so much, if they didn't try to stifle individualism, if they didn't trick people into self destructive behavior, but they do. Why do they do it ?
Thinking backwards is easy at this point. They do it for the same reason they do everything else, to attempt to satisfy their greed. That's all water under the bridge now, the point now is that they do not give a damn about us. Not one bit.
Please prove me wrong. I'll be clicking my heels together three times.
T
|
RE: Conspiracy Theories, (tin hat or otherwise) - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread