SMBC Comics Forum

9/11, not even in the top ten worst crimes committed in the new york financial district, ever heard of CAPITALISM?

I personally believe that you are just a propagandist of the racist and fascist Golden Dawn party. The attack was actually organized by Golden Dawn to get the most powerful military force in the world to attack Muslim nations while simultaneously draining its economy making it unprepared to deal with the housing market crash, thus plunging the world into economic chaos that would eventually lead to political and economic turmoil in Greece, allowing Golden Dawn to seize power. It is the perfect plan. Not only do they get to have 'racially inferior' middle eastern people killed, but they get to take over Greece. You almost got away with, but you gave away your secret bias and thus your evil plan. I find this theory to be at least as plausible as yours.

Jim Garrison wrote:Someone else wrote:
"I've always wondered when I hear the control demolition theory how they supposedly got all these explosives into the buildings full of people with no one noticing."

The elevator shafts were not the failure point. You are either an idiot, a troll, or both. Why do you insist on taking the word of people who are not experts in structural engineering of skyscrapers but don't accept the explanations provided by the actual experts? Do you think damn near every single person who actually is an expert on some of this stuff is part of the conspiracy? Do you actually believe that a conspiracy this vast would remain so secret that no testimony of anyone involved has come out or that no solid empirical proof has come up? Do you really believe the government (or whoever) is competent enough to involve at least hundreds and probably thousands of people in wiring two huge buildings with explosives over at least several days in order to kill thousands of civilians and then organize the crashing of planes into them in order to cover up the explosives? And not only were they able to do all this without getting caught, but they were able to keep it quiet after the fact?

And to what end? Something of a much smaller scale could have accomplished getting the public motivated to go to war and boost approval of the Bush administration. And why then blame it on Afgani Al Queda? There is not very many good reasons to invade Afganistan. Why not blame it directly on an actual mideast power with valuable resources like Iran, Saudi Arabia or Iraq? It would have saved a whole lot of trouble two years later. We could have skipped the whole WMD song and dance before invading Iraq if Iraq had just been framed in the first place.

see, the conspiracy is so vast, that the only people who aren't in on it know shit all about engineering, hence why their theories make no sense

Your disinformation technics are becoming repetitive.
There are so many, you really don't have to be that boring and predictable: http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

Anyway intelligent disinformation is more subtle than that: it's mainly about taking accurate data out of its context to give it a meaning which is totally false. Also an efficient muddying of the waters can be achieved by saturating the debate with irrelevant information treated in an irrelevant way, as well as false data mixed with true data. The goal being to confuse the public until they are so sick of the whole thing they don't want to hear one more word about it.

In the case of Roswell the army went as far as fabricating fake evidence against themselves, the alien autopsy video, which was easy to debunk in order to associate their opponents with fraud in the minds of the uninformed.

HEY KETTLE FUCK U UR A BLACK Classy Lady AYE

Who's muddying the waters here? Us for trying to point out to you that your idea is so ridiculously implausible and improbable that it deserves to be laughed at, or you for trying to pass of as fact an alternative history to an event in which
a)the known perpetrator was somehow completely innocent,
b) every single person involved seemed to be in on the act, and yet
c) somehow the entire general public was completely in the dark about what was going to happen, even though logistically a good number of them must have had some knowledge of the terrible events that were about to unfold, either because of being directly involved in the set up or by knowing friends and loved ones who were?

Do you want to know why no one here is taking seriously?

First of all, it's not even remotely plausible.
Second of all, you're clearly so obsessed about what you believe you've clearly never taken a step back and decided to think critically about any of it, then weighed it up against other competing possibilities and decided which was more likely. By refusing to think critically, and only searching for whatever snippets of information you find that justify what you believe and rejecting everything else, you've combined tenuous idea upon tenuous idea and convinced yourself that it all fits together perfectly, completely ignorant of all the conflicting evidence that would have presented itself with more diligent research and free of any scepticism.
Thirdly, after doing all this, you have the gall to accuse us of not thinking critically, when we have done exactly that and hence rejected the conspiracy idea, and whereas you haven't because you've signed yourself up for one incredibly remote possibility and refuse to even acknowledge any others. It's incredibly hypocritical and only serves to highlight your fanaticism and dogmatism.

Now how about you stop distracting yourself with the idea that you are part of some dark subversive plot that only you are intelligent enough to see through, and start focusing on the REAL problems facing your country? Ones like your health care, education, and the corporate influence of your parliamentary system? These are the things you should be spending some time on, not getting off on the idea that you can see things other can't.

OP needs a shave with dat Occam's Razor

Occam's razor doesn't mean that the simplest theory is the best. Otherwise the simplest theory is always the three letters one: GOD. When one of the competing theories is simpler but disproved by observation and experiment Occam's razor is not relevant.

god did 9/11

Jim Garrison wrote:Occam's razor doesn't mean that the simplest theory is the best. Otherwise the simplest theory is always the three letters one: GOD. When one of the competing theories is simpler but disproved by observation and experiment Occam's razor is not relevant.

Wait, are you saying there are things that aren't an act of God? This conversation has taken a sudden, very blasphemous, turn. :/

please someone lock this heretical thread

Jim Garrison wrote:Occam's razor doesn't mean that the simplest theory is the best. Otherwise the simplest theory is always the three letters one: GOD. When one of the competing theories is simpler but disproved by observation and experiment Occam's razor is not relevant.

I read this topic but I didn't see where you "disproved" the simpler theory by observation and experiment.

nobody wrote:please someone lock this heretical thread

I'll do you one better.

After reading all the very convincing arguments that you have posted here, I have been forced to conclude that I was wrong about the attacks on the World Trade Center. I hereby accept the findings of the NIST commission as accurate and complete, and recant all my previous statements to the contrary. This will be my final word on the subject, and anything I say later about it should be disregarded.

Thank you for your time, and God Bless America.

I'm glad to see you have come to your senses on this matter. All the best.