How to Write a Conspiracy Theory

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 20:10
VIEWED: 9429
PAGE 2 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

ANTHONYT

Saturday, January 20, 2007 2:49 AM

Ah, Antimason, then you will never win.

Because if the Conspirators create a version of events that is plausible, and you propose one that is not plausible, they win.

Create better conspiracy theories. Or you lose.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTIMASON

Saturday, January 20, 2007 3:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

What about the conspiracy the cover up the truth about 9/11 (that it simply was an attack by Al Queda terrorists using hyjacked airplanes) by coming up with all these conspiracy theories?

what about the conspiracy to coverup the conspiracy?

but im curious.. in your opinion, what is our motive? is it pure paranoia, or is it a secret hatred of America?

Quote:
You see all the great conspiracies were winding down, folk were losing interest. So all the conspiracy folk got together to invent a new conspiracy.

actually we got together, prewired building 7, coerced Bush to sign 199i(stay off Bin Laden trail), trained some terrorists at US military bases, made some money on the stock market, removed the transponders from the planes, distracted NORAD, and among other things.. removed any sign of a plane from the pentagon, along with all video footage

Quote:
Originally they intended to have the great "Orchestrated Fall of the Phoney Communism Causes Global Warming at BehestCaused by Corporate Air Conditioning Interests Controlled by Jews Fronting for the Knights Templar". But the 9/11 happened so they took up the "Bush behind 9/11" banner instead.

would Bush be president if it werent for his membership in the satanic skull and bones society? maybe.. because his family has a traitorous reputation and were entrenched sufficiently to shut up about things.. but if wasnt him, it would have been fellow bonesman Kerry, of the 'order of death'

Quote:
JFK, Elvis, Aliens, they are all old news, now they have a whole bunch of books, movies, and websites.

oh, but dont forget, we're out to make money too. only wait, we have no mainstream cable networks.. hmm? thats strange, wheres our money coming from, since we're denied a public platform? FOX, CNN, NBC.. theyre all private corporations, out entirely for money.. who admittedly propogate the establishments viewpoint and purpetuate their false political paradigm; but you dont think they have an alterior motive?

i dont appreciate being implicitly referred to as a terrorist, because i doubt and scrutinize the government.. something the corporate media mouthpieces like Sean Hannity dont have the balls to do( but the sheer amount of propoganda makes it crystal clear anyways that theyve got their nose up the pentagons asshole). in the end we have no motive in all of this but the truth, which is something that is becoming an antonymn to government

ANTIMASON

Saturday, January 20, 2007 3:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Ah, Antimason, then you will never win.

Because if the Conspirators create a version of events that is plausible, and you propose one that is not plausible, they win.

Create better conspiracy theories. Or you lose.

9/11 seems intricate because it was- if it could possibly have been explained solely by 19 hijackers and some negligent politicians, then it would have been... but the reality is that only a far reaching element within government could have pulled it off; claiming 19 hijackers did it out of the blue is a little more difficult to explain. i have no need to base an arguement on false/fabricated evidence, we claim the buildings were prewired with thermate because THEY FOUND TRACES OF IT AMONG THE DEBRIS! on its own that would sound 'crazy'.. but if that seems unlikely, what are the odds that Bushs bro Marvin operated Securacom, the company in charge of tower security? i didnt peice this together out of my own clever ingenuity, its a fact.. just like the CIA insider trading and numerous warnings from other intelligence agencies etc etc. oversimplifying the evidence just damages the case for those who want to expose the roots of the conspiracy, not just the shallow visible surface

FLETCH2

Saturday, January 20, 2007 4:22 AM

Intricate plans don't work. Ask Napoleon.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, January 20, 2007 5:20 AM

"i dont appreciate being implicitly referred to as a terrorist, because i doubt and scrutinize the government.."

I don't think anybody has implied that you are a terrorist. A lot of people imply that you are off your rocker.

But anyways, try to answer me these questions:

1) What is the desired effect of the 9/11 conspiracy?

2) Why could this effect not be achieved without planting explosives (Thermite, even!) within the Twin Towers?

3) You say traces of Thermite were discovered in the wreckage of the towers. What, specifically was found, and by whom? Do you have copies of the reports in question?

4) Why was it necessary to use a (missile/military jet) to strike the Pentagon, when regular commercial airliners were available for the job, and would fit the bill of goods the authorities are trying to sell?

5) Why would you disembark a plane full of people and then fake the crash of their plane, when it is easier to actually crash the plane they are on?

Please take on these points, one by one, as I have presented them. Please avoid tangents like Satanic worshipping and Skull and Bones unless they are directly related to these points.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

BUFFALOPHIL

Saturday, January 20, 2007 6:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"i dont appreciate being implicitly referred to as a terrorist, because i doubt and scrutinize the government.."

I don't think anybody has implied that you are a terrorist. A lot of people imply that you are off your rocker.

But anyways, try to answer me these questions:

1) What is the desired effect of the 9/11 conspiracy?

2) Why could this effect not be achieved without planting explosives (Thermite, even!) within the Twin Towers?

3) You say traces of Thermite were discovered in the wreckage of the towers. What, specifically was found, and by whom? Do you have copies of the reports in question?

4) Why was it necessary to use a (missile/military jet) to strike the Pentagon, when regular commercial airliners were available for the job, and would fit the bill of goods the authorities are trying to sell?

5) Why would you disembark a plane full of people and then fake the crash of their plane, when it is easier to actually crash the plane they are on?

Please take on these points, one by one, as I have presented them. Please avoid tangents like Satanic worshipping and Skull and Bones unless they are directly related to these points.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Anthony, you rock.

"I cannot abide useless people."

ANTIMASON

Saturday, January 20, 2007 8:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"i dont appreciate being implicitly referred to as a terrorist, because i doubt and scrutinize the government.."

I don't think anybody has implied that you are a terrorist. A lot of people imply that you are off your rocker.

exactly, we're either crazy, or terrorists.. but theres no possibility that we're onto something?

Quote:
But anyways, try to answer me these questions:

1) What is the desired effect of the 9/11 conspiracy?

it most likely serves many purposes, but most importantly to bring America under a one world government

Quote:
2) Why could this effect not be achieved without planting explosives (Thermite, even!) within the Twin Towers?

because maybe the planes alone werent sufficient to bring the towers down, and this was taken into consideration; if youre asking me why the towers needed to collapse, then its a matter of symbolism(like Hitlers Reichstag fire). if the buildings werent destroyed in such a polarizing manner, and than driven into our heads by the media, the emotional build up for a war on terror or in Iraq just would not have persisted.

Quote:
3) You say traces of Thermite were discovered in the wreckage of the towers. What, specifically was found, and by whom? Do you have copies of the reports in question?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904

Quote:
4) Why was it necessary to use a (missile/military jet) to strike the Pentagon, when regular commercial airliners were available for the job, and would fit the bill of goods the authorities are trying to sell?

im not sure.. but lets talk about what was found; its no conspiracy that all the film has been confiscated, no wreckage has ever been shown, and the original photos show an impact crater that could not possibly have come from a commercial airliner

Quote:
5) Why would you disembark a plane full of people and then fake the crash of their plane, when it is easier to actually crash the plane they are on?

why create a false flag terror event to begin with? what do they care.. the purpose is to fullfill an agenda, its all a means to an end.. if they need to turn transponders off and set up CIA decoy drills they will

FLETCH2

Saturday, January 20, 2007 9:05 AM

Seems to me.

1) You don't need to bring the towers down to get our attention or to make the American people mad enough to endorse the administration's agenda if that was the objective. The loss of life alone would be enough. As I stated before I think this delusion of yours is a coping mechanism to deal with the fact that you just can't believe that the Towers could be destroyed by the jets alone. So even though the conspiracy you are talking about would be a million times more difficult and infinately more likely to be discovered, you prefer it to the real event because it's more satisfying. It's like bank robberies, most real ones involve a handfull of men and if they are successfull take less than 3 minutes, but reality isn't thrilling enough, so when Hollywood does a bank robbery there is an intricate plan, lots of robbers and fancy gadgets. Reality is often not as satisfing as fiction.

2) If you plan to ram a jet into a building probably killing a minimum of 200 folks inside, you wouldn't bother to disembark the 40 or so on the plane. Generally mass murderers don't have scruples. You turn transponders off to make it harder for the plane to be tracked from the ground and hopefully delay interception. What the hijackers did on the day shows that they had planned for the possibility of a USAF interception, something they would have known wouldn't happen if the US military was in on the plot.

What I think we've proven here is that the conspiracy you are presenting is far more elaborate, cumbersome and risky than any number of ways the administration COULD have used to create the same event. In planning something you always t6ry to go with the simple plan and remove as many variables as possible. Bear in mind that if a plan like this was discovered almost everbody involved would be guilty of treason. You would want to remove every posibility of failure and keep it as simple as you could.

It's magic thinking. You are psychologically incapable of accepting that 19 nobodies with a few thousand dollars and a grudge could do an end run around a million man defence department and destroy a billion dollar building. If that were possible then you could never be safe, because you can find 19 guys with a grudge anywhere. In addition though you think the government is crooked you have a patriotic streak, part of you doesn't want to believe that 19 bozo's could successfully attack the US of A. It's shaming and humiliating. It is better to imagine that some traitor did this --- that powerfull America did this to herself --- than to live with the humiliation that this was planned by losers sitting in a cave in Afghanistan. It's like "The Mouse that Roared" you don't want to admit the US was beaten up by the dutchy of Gran Fenwick.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, January 20, 2007 4:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904

Like any good conspiracy theorist, Professor Jones has substituted an overly elaborate solution for a simple one. First of all, I’ll address your initial claim, because it is not Professor Jones’ claim. To my knowledge thermite/thermate was not found among WTC wreckage. While thermite/thermate residue may have been found by someone, this really tells us nothing, because these residues (aluminum compounds and sulfur) are present in the construction materials used to build the WTC and most other modern buildings.

Now Professor Jones’ claim is not that these residues (much less the actual thermite) were found, in fact he agrees that such residue would be indistinguishable from construction residue, but rather that the molten stream appearing from the impact site of WTC2 was inconsistent with pure molten aluminum and therefore must have been molten steel, which Professor Jones contends could only have been created by a thermite reaction. He presents no evidence of this other then the fact that molten aluminum alloys, at ~500-600ºC, does not radiate in the visible and therefore appears silvery in contrast to molten steel (at temperatures deemed inconsistent with low-oxygen burning jet fuel). So Professor Jones proposes this elaborate conclusion that some thermite reaction must be present, and that the steel beams in the WTC were thermally cut using some thermite reaction.

The problem with this is that there is no evidence for it, and it is based on a strawman. No one has ever argued that the molten stream appearing from WTC2 was pure aluminum. There is no conceivable way in which the airframe could have melted into pure molten aluminum alloys. There would have been, at the very least paint and insulation mixed with the aluminum, along with any number of countless debris picked up within the WTC. This debris in the molten aluminum would have caused the stream to radiate very visibly yellow to red, which is precisely what we see.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

ANTHONYT

Saturday, January 20, 2007 5:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"i dont appreciate being implicitly referred to as a terrorist, because i doubt and scrutinize the government.."

I don't think anybody has implied that you are a terrorist. A lot of people imply that you are off your rocker.

exactly, we're either crazy, or terrorists.. but theres no possibility that we're onto something?

Of course there's the possibility that you're on to something. But you've done nothing to bolster that possibility. By the way, stop with the terrorist thing already. No one thinks you are a terrorist.

Quote:

Quote:
But anyways, try to answer me these questions:

1) What is the desired effect of the 9/11 conspiracy?

it most likely serves many purposes, but most importantly to bring America under a one world government

Okay, I was looking for an immediate effect, like, 'scare folks.' But I'll take your answer.

Quote:

Quote:
2) Why could this effect not be achieved without planting explosives (Thermite, even!) within the Twin Towers?

because maybe the planes alone werent sufficient to bring the towers down, and this was taken into consideration; if youre asking me why the towers needed to collapse, then its a matter of symbolism(like Hitlers Reichstag fire). if the buildings werent destroyed in such a polarizing manner, and than driven into our heads by the media, the emotional build up for a war on terror or in Iraq just would not have persisted.

Two planes crash into a building, killing hundreds instantly. Burning fuel threatens hundreds more. People, filled with fear, jump to their deaths and splatter on the asphalt. Hundreds escape with harrowing details of terror and feelings of helplessness. The news airs footage of this 24/7. Eventually, the World Trade Center buildings are declared condemned and are manually demolished. No one feels safe any more.

Nope. No buildings needed to fall. And I'd have been plenty enraged enough to do everything I did, no matter whether they fell or not.

Quote:

Quote:
3) You say traces of Thermite were discovered in the wreckage of the towers. What, specifically was found, and by whom? Do you have copies of the reports in question?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904

Okay, so no actual Thermite was found by anyone. It was inferred by faulty logic.

Thermite, incidentally, is Aluminum and Iron Oxide. It burns at the remarkable temperature of 4000 degrees, hotter than the suface of the sun. More remarkable, thermite can't be ignited with just anything, you need other exotic components, like magnesium, to set it off. This is because it ignites at 1,400 degrees. Remember, Thermite is Aluminum and Rusty Iron. It's burning metal. There are a lot better materials to use to weaken structures than thermite. Also remember, if you had magnesium, which burns at 1,400 degrees, you wouldn't NEED the Thermite. Silly Rabbit. You got complicated for no reason again.

Thermite Data Sheet: http://www.unitednuclear.com/thermitemsds.htm

Quote:

Quote:
4) Why was it necessary to use a (missile/military jet) to strike the Pentagon, when regular commercial airliners were available for the job, and would fit the bill of goods the authorities are trying to sell?

im not sure.. but lets talk about what was found; its no conspiracy that all the film has been confiscated, no wreckage has ever been shown, and the original photos show an impact crater that could not possibly have come from a commercial airliner

You're not sure? That's compelling. There is no reason a military jet/missile needed to be used. You're right that it's no conspiracy that all film has been confiscated. They do that during an investigation, for perfectly legitimate reasons. As for an impact crater that 'could not possible have come from a commercial airliner' that's a completely subjective and unsupported statement

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE