OnePlus 5 review
I spent quite a few hours looking at all the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 just a few weeks back and there are certainly some interesting points to consider, the WTC 7 collapse being announced before hand being one of them.
click here and click here are 2 interesting videos to watch, particularly the first one. Some more to watch if you're interested click here. You'll find some better than others - some of the claims made in some are just ridiculous eg. one guy suggests the plane that hit the South tower was a military aircraft with a missile attached to the underneath.
When you do look through all of this, it's important to investigate both sides of the story. It's very easy to get sucked into these conspiracy theories when you start watching a lot of them, as I almost did. Here is a good site that will explain a lot of the accusations made click here.
My personal opinion - Common Sense tells you that the American government wouldn't risk doing something as tragic and sick as 9/11. If they were ever found out, the result would be unimaginable. I can't deny however that there is still is slight cloud of doubt lingering in my mind as to everything being what it seemed.
There will always be some conspiracy theory attached to this event until the time that it is admitted.
I'm not suggesting one way or the other what is the truth behind the matter, just that there will always be doubt until it is stated that it was a plot by the US government. It is no use anyone saying there wasn't a plot because there will always be people who believe otherwise.
Firstly let me point out that I have no way of knowing if any of the buildings behind the reporter are the building that is reported to have collapsed. Secondly even supposing the building that collapsed is still visable does that mean it hasn't collapsed?
It means its mainly still there, a lot of the outer walls anyway. It doesn't mean that large portions of the building hasn't fallen down.
If you saw a building and the outer shell was still there but large parts of it were broken away and perhaps large parts of the inside of the building had collapsed would it not be reasonable assumming the building is very badly damaged to call it collapsed? If its so badly damaged that its certain to fall down is that not a reason to call it collapsed.
I would consider that a much more reasonable explantation of the events than the stuff on the conspiracy website.
How about a truly radical theory...some people who ha da bit of a grudge against The States, commandeered some planes and crashed them into some buildings. Hard to believe I know and there is no chance of such a far fetched story being made into a film.
Now that really would be a radical theory!
Given that the only evidence that we have is that millions of us saw the second aircraft crash into the other tower on TV, millions saw the recording of the first aircraft crash, there have been inquiries which say that this is what happened and the programmes which have tried to disprove it seem to have holes in them I agree with you that there would probably be a little difficulty in convincing the public.
Doesn't that make it a perfect conspiracy theory? - I'd go along with it and it could spawn a whole new list of conspiracies to keep us all busy too :-)
Thet havent released the footage of the two UFO's hovering nearby yet....that will cause a storm when they do.
but I'm absolutely up to here with conspiracy theory stories about 9/11.
I think I'm losing the will to live.
A couple of possibilities spring to mind.
1. The BBC video is hoax by left-wingers.
2. The owner of the building, who said that the building was "pulled" i.e. demolished, was speaking the truth, and they had spent the whole day planting explosives in a burning building because they thought it would be damaged beyond repair so might as well demolish it then as later.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.