- Jul 14, 2015
- 12,271
- 7,627
- 51
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Can anyone link to where a well known conspiracy theory has been shown to be real and not just pie in the sky?
There are real conspiracies out there, but they cease being theories when they cease being imagined. It's kind of like alternative medicine; if alternative medicine worked we would just call it medicine.Can anyone link to where a well known conspiracy theory has been shown to be real and not just pie in the sky?
There are real conspiracies out there, but they cease being theories when they cease being imagined. It's kind of like alternative medicine; if alternative medicine worked we would just call it medicine.
The longer something is a conspiracy theory, the less likely it is to be an actual conspiracy.
Nope. Not one.I guess that's what I'm getting at: are there any 'fringe' theories that where hushed up but uncovered by internet slueths?
Really? Did you even bother doing a search? check the link posted by WalksWithChrist.Nope. Not one.
Nope. Not one.
None that I know of.I guess that's what I'm getting at: are there any 'fringe' theories that were hushed up but uncovered by internet slueths?
...so?I like to focus on facts. Like Marvin Bush George W. Bush's younger brother being the director of the company in charge of security for Dulles National Airport, United Airlines and the World Trade Center leading up to nine eleven. That's just too big of a coincidence imo. I don't really care if I'm called a tin hat conspiracy theorist. All I'm after is truth.
They're all sort of conspiracies, if you half close your eye and look sideways. They've none of them been broken open by people with randomly capitalised Geocities websites though. Nor are any of them on the order of what people usually mean when discussing such, like "9/11 was an inside job", or "Freemasons/Illuminati are conspiring to commit genocide" or stuff like that.Really? Did you even bother doing a search? check the link posted by WalksWithChrist.
How so?
Well, if what you say is accurate, his brother was responsible for the security of ONE of the planes that hit ONE of the buildings. In fact, the plane from Dulles hit the Pentagon, not the WTC, so is a private security company responsible for the Pentagon security? In this day and age, it's possible, but it doesn't sound like that's what you were saying.What are the odds that George W. Bush's brother would be in charge of the company responsible for security at the airport, the plane and the buildings that were hit? The company was responsible for preventing what happened. It's like a one in a million chance that Marvin Bush would be the one in charge.
Well, if what you say is accurate, his brother was responsible for the security of ONE of the planes that hit ONE of the buildings. In fact, the plane from Dulles hit the Pentagon, not the WTC, so is a private security company responsible for the Pentagon security? In this day and age, it's possible, but it doesn't sound like that's what you were saying.
I seriously doubt that the boss of any airport security company has much to do with how the day to day security issues are dealt with. I don't know about the US, but in Australia, the guidelines of aviation security come from the Federal Government, the individual companies are just contractors following the script.
Now, if you had evidence that M. Bush had sent out a memo saying that "box cutters are to be allowed through" you might have something. Short of that? Meh, I'm happy to accept it as coincidence. Possible evidence of some low level cronyism if one brother got another brother's company a federal contract, but that's not really that damning, IMHO.
As for being in charge of building security, I'm not sure what you would want the average security company to do about an aeroplane crashing into your building. SAMs?
Well, military training in demolition and explosives is all I have to bring to the discussion. Oh, and a bit on security and search technique. I can't speak to structural engineering, but I'd bet my entire years income that it wasn't a controlled demolition.I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was an inside job, but when you have M. Bush in charge of security for the plane and the building and his brother in charge of the response what happened along with many other things like what happened to WT7 it's just too much. I have a degree in structural engineering and there's no reason WT7 should have collapsed the way it did. Consider what happened to the building in the Oklahoma city bombing. Half of it was blown apart and the remaining portion still didn't collapse. WT7 was fully intact it collapsed completely. Also, the Empire State building was hit by a B-25 bomber in 1945 which also caused and jet fuel fire and it was also constructed of steel and idn't collapse. The WTC was built to withstand a jetliner impact including the fact that there would be a jet fuel fire following impact. To think that the designers didn't assume a jet fuel fire following impact is pretty ridiculous.