Has anyone else noticed that the 9/11 conspiracy theorist can only support their theories with really grainy,?
Topic: Plane crash case study
July 15, 2019 / By Florette Question:
fuzzy film clips and factless suppositions based on eyewitness reports given by people who couldn't possibly have had time to see all the detail they claim to have seen?
Case in point: Mark Burnback, a FOX reporter, who claims to have had time to study the logo he says he saw on the front of the airplane that crashed into one of the towers.
I don't know if you guys have noticed, but planes fly pretty fast. And these were low-flying at the time of the impact.
There's no way this liar saw a logo of ANY kind, because people were seeing something they didn't expect to see, something that was moving very fast, and something that was gone almost as soon as it came.
But this is the kind of stuff the conspiracy theorists are relying on.
Kim: Show me your incontrovertible proof.
bombastic: The planes you see aren't flying by you at full speed. Living near an airport, you should be aware that they slow down when they're about to land.
The cowards who flew the planes into the towers on 9/11 had no intention of landing the plane and were flying much faster than the ones you see landing and taking off at your airport.
Common sense should tell you that.
Best Answers: Has anyone else noticed that the 9/11 conspiracy theorist can only support their theories with really grainy,?
Darina | 4 days ago
You know I was on Church St. working at that time on that fateful day. I can assure you no one would have noticed those things. If these theorists were there and running for their life when the towers collapsed too, they might have a different perspective.
👍 176 | 👎 4
Did you like the answer? Has anyone else noticed that the 9/11 conspiracy theorist can only support their theories with really grainy,?
Share with your friends
We found more questions related to the topic: Plane crash case study
Originally Answered: My boyfriend is a Conspiracy Theorist! Can someone please help me win this argument.?
I just find it hard to swallow that such a supposedly corporate-friendly, pro-business, cunning administration would stage an attack that was so financially ruinous. Why attack the World Trade Center, the financial hub of American capitalism, if you are serving corporate paymasters?
IF the government was going to stage an attack on America for nefarious purposes, they didn't need to do something as expensive and destructive as attacking the World Trade Center. Why wouldn't they have done something just as deadly, but less destructive, like releasing a poisonous gas or attacking a non-commercial monument? A thousand people killed and the Statue of Liberty destroyed would have elicited just as much rage and fear from Americans, certainly enough for the Government to get whatever it was they are supposed to be after.
Furthermore, if it was orchestrated by the government, why would they leave behind so many loose ends? Why wouldn't they have shot down one of the planes, to inspire confidence in the President? Why didn't Bush respond more resolutely upon hearing the news, instead of appearing stunned while reading to children, leaving himself open to criticism?
You don't even have to get into the specifics of demolition physics, the insurance policies, or the video evidence. It just doesn't make sense for the government to have used such a needlessly destructive attack if their goal was just to start a war or curb civil liberties. A much simpler, much less expensive attack would have sufficed, and an orchestrated attack would have had a much smoother response.
Unless you're Mark Burnback you've really got no say in whether or not he saw a logo on the airline. I live near an airport, I've seen low flying planes and I can identify their logos.
As far as their footage, they compare the way the WTC towers collapsed to that of a building that was being blown up by construction workers.. Both the WTC buildings, and the one being blown up fell the same way.
I'm not a 'conspiracy theorist' but I keep my views open.
👍 70 | 👎 -5
I have little doubt that the govt. is hiding a lot of information from the public regarding ALL of the events leading up to and including the attacks on 9/11.
But I definitely don't buy all the tinfoil hat conspiracies surrounding it.
If the govt. would come clean with all the details, then most of these outlandish conspiracies would go away.
👍 67 | 👎 -14
i might say somebody which could shop on with good judgment to an arguement will see incredibly that almost all the conspiracy theories do no longer carry plenty weight. in certainty, a number of them are very almost humorous they're so outlandish and lots-fetched. maximum of them are actually not something extra effective than the strategic piecing jointly of stripling inconsistencies interior the "real" tale to make sure thier thought. those theories might, in my opinion, ought to respond to and coach numerous issues till now i visit contemplate them valid. occasion: the certainty that thermite would have been used to take down the WTC does no longer coach it replaced into used. Wait , I undergo in ideas each and all the steel replaced into at as quickly as shipped away so the info could be destroyed, precise?
👍 64 | 👎 -23
Well there was a white van full of secret Israeli police who were pulled off the road watching the towers before the crashes..then cheering afterward...
Strange they'd be examining the towers like that. What were they cheering about ?
New York police officers wrote it up. Were the police lying ?....To what end ?
👍 61 | 👎 -32
Originally Answered: Why do 9/11 Truth seekers have more sources than the Pancake Conspiracy Theorist '?
Wow, it's like we live in a police state now! You ask a question and you get persecuted! George Bush and the government have you just were they want you!
People that never want to face the facts or at least seek truth most always do what the folks above have done, which is attack you personally or instantly say you are wrong knowing they have done no research to back their argument.
Did everybody all of a sudden forget that Larry Silverstein admitted they blew up(We decided to pull it) WTC 7!
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
How come Thermate was found on WTC material?
Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham Young University physics professor has identified the material as Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue.
Prof. Steven Jones, who conducted his PhD research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility, has analyised materials from WTC and has detected the existence of thermate, used for "cutting" the steel support columns, as evident in the photo below.
p.s. Please don't say this is fake. This is a PhD scientist of over 30 years.
People really seem to be dumbed down and living in their own idiocracy.
Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.