Oh my lord, can we all just give it a rest? Or else I'll have to jump in...
Shit here I go:
1) If it was a giant conspiracy there was more than a "handful" of people involved. There had to be -- a LOT more. None of them talking has nothing to do with fear. The people that knew would not be the same. After the event people around them would know it, they can't be involved in the mass murder of thousands of people and just go on like nothing happened. It's not possible - not for that many people.
And don't suggest things like Nazis or Rwanda and mass murder, completely different - they were not killing their own. That's just one distinction.
2) Collapsing floors. When is the last time a commercial airline was flown into a 30-year-old skyscraper? So there is not point of reference. Saying the fuel *could not* have melted the beams is ridiculous. A combination of an airplane flying at hundreds of miles an hour, the crash, an explosion, very fucking hot fuel pouring in ... is it not plausible that they could have been weakened? And if they weakened then one point of failure can lead to collapse. It's possible.
3) I mentioned back in thread #413 on this topic about the rationale of flying planes into 4 buildings. Think. If you were the grand planner of this scheme you did not *need* to go through all this trouble. To plan a conspiracy on this level is insane - you are banking on 4 different events in 3 different locations which means a lot can go wrong.
A much safer and more realistic plan would have been to just blow up the WTC, even one. Put bombs inside and claim terrorists planted them. Relatively easy and the nation still would've been shocked and he would have still gone forward with Operation Saddam.
4) The original videos on this conspiracy have already been shown to contain many falsehoods and are generally considered propaganda. This has been cited in several sources. They put together anything that supported a conspiracy theory and ignored or edited the rest.
5) A bunch of interesting and yes, hard to explain, hypotheses does not equal a massive conspiracy. It's like saying that since we don't understand exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids, aliens must have done it (okay, not the best example but you get the idea).
6) All the talk about guard dogs being removed from the WTC and other circumstantial evidence individually certainly warrants answers. But to prove anything you need more than that. I said before, pretend it was a court case. You're the prosecutor. Bring all your evidence to support a conspiracy.
First, who are you charging with the crime and what evidence do you have against them? My guess is you don't have a single piece for any individual, not one. And this is a common theme among just about every conspiracy theory - you have a lot of curious and odd evidence, but nothing - not one thing - that points to anyone specifically or actual evidence of a planned conspiracy. And worse, you put together a bunch of pieces but you don't even attempt to connect the dots. And in this case there are a lot of dots not connected.
So if you want to convince the world of a conspiracy theory, paint the picture. Don't point out piece of odd thing #1, 2 and 3 and leave them unconnected. Explain how it was all put together. Who came up with the idea? Who planned it? When? Where? How?
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, ask yourself: What is a more likely and realistic scenario: Terrorists took over 4 planes and crashed 3 of them on target or the government staged the whole thing. Before you answer that, just consider how complex a conspiracy would have had to been involved. Really break it down, every possible portion of the events, planning and aftermath ... or terrorists hijacked planes (something that as history has shown as, they are very adept at doing).
G'night
