Conspiracy Theories

[Kuan]

The subject pretty well explains itself but it has interested me. A couple of my friends are convinced 9/11 was planned by the Bush administration but I dont buy into it. Out of all the theorys, do any of them contain any possibility that they are true?

The 11 Most Compelling 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

We dont have to restrict it to just 9/11 theories though.

[LiamOS]

Some of my friends are somewhat the same, and one or two ever think that aliens cause crop circles etc.

Most of their 'evidence' is very circumstantial, and they perform their 'research' with the aid of the internet, so I'm more than sceptical, naturally.

[perfessor]

I'm not impressed by any of the theories. In general, they fail the "Occam's Razor" test and/or the sniff test.

For example, why wire the buildings with explosives, and then fly a plane into it? Why not just fly the plane? Rigging explosives adds a huge risk of exposure, for no real benefit to the "plan".

Many point to the collapse of Building 7, which was not hit by a plane. But it was extensively damaged by the collapse of the adjacent tower, this damage is visible on photos.

One theory in the list points out that a plane should have caused more damage to the Pentagon; another says that a plane should have caused less damage to the WTC. Which is it??

I used to be a fan of JFK conspiracy theories; "No way could Oswald have gotten off those shots" etc etc. But the more I thought about it, the more it became apparent that not only was the simplest explanation the best one, but it was the only one that really made sense. I think the same is true in this case.

I do think it's odd that we never went after Saudi Arabia, since most of the hijackers were Saudis. But that's another ball of wax.

[Kuan]

I'm not impressed by any of the theories. In general, they fail the "Occam's Razor" test and/or the sniff test.

For example, why wire the buildings with explosives, and then fly a plane into it? Why not just fly the plane? Rigging explosives adds a huge risk of exposure, for no real benefit to the "plan".

Well, from where the plane hit the tower, it was not enough to bring it down so explosives where needed. Whether the terrorists or government planted them is debatable.

Many point to the collapse of Building 7, which was not hit by a plane. But it was extensively damaged by the collapse of the adjacent tower, this damage is visible on photos.

True

One theory in the list points out that a plane should have caused more damage to the Pentagon; another says that a plane should have caused less damage to the WTC. Which is it??

Very good point.

I used to be a fan of JFK conspiracy theories; "No way could Oswald have gotten off those shots" etc etc. But the more I thought about it, the more it became apparent that not only was the simplest explanation the best one, but it was the only one that really made sense. I think the same is true in this case.

The theories seem best to be suited for Hollywood and not reality.

I do think it's odd that we never went after Saudi Arabia, since most of the hijackers were Saudis. But that's another ball of wax.

Political agenda really.

[Slopeshoulder]

You need new friends.

[Kuan]

You need new friends.

They're way too fun to get new friends.

[LiamOS]

I think SlopeShoulder was volunteering to be a new friend.

[Kuan]

I think SlopeShoulder was volunteering to be a new friend.

I thought we already were friends?

[LiamOS]

I think he meant friends in the 'lets hang out and listen to music/take drugs' manner, but that's probably just me(it is).

[Darias]

[center]9/11 Truthers
Obama Birthers
Faked Moon Landings
Second JFK shooter
Jew owned media
Masonic controlled governments
Ancient Aliens
Y2K
2012
Left Behind


[/center]

[center][/center]

[center][/center]

[center][/center]
















[center]Yep. [/center]