posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:42 AM
Originally posted by 19872012
I've seen a lot of OS believers try to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theory by saying there's no evidence of explosions/bombs in the towers. Why does
it even matter though? Even if the complex was brought down only by the planes (which I find hard to believe though I suppose it might be possible), I
still think it was a conspiracy. Maybe they used Islamic terrorists to fly the planes, but I still think the elites, probably the Bildebergs, were the
ones who master-minded the attacks. There's no evidence Osama Bin Laden did it.
So thermite, nukes, does it even really matter?
Actually it does, becuase the whole hijackers vs controlled demolitions/nukes/lasers from outer space/no planes/whastever are really just proxy
arguments for the real issue- who was behind it.
The 19 hijackers crowd will accept the idea that it was a terrorist organiation behind the attack so they accept the fires scenario, while the
controlled demolitions, nukes, etc crowd will insist that the culprits are, well, whoever it is they individually suspect is behind it. This person
thinks it's the gov't. That person thinks it's the Jewish World Order. Someone else thinks it's a secret cult of Satan worshipping
numerologists. I've heard tell that at least one person thinks it was staged by shape shifting alien lizards. The method of the collapse is
therefore dependent entirely upon the types of resources it would require, so controlled demolitions were pulled off by the Jewish World Order with
their armies of Pfefferbergs and Epsteins, the lasers from outer space would require gov't technology to put the weapon in orbit, and so on.
So, I agree the exact method that the towers were destroyed isn't really important, but the exact method one supports is entirely dependent on
whether you believe it was pulled off by terrorists, Satan worshipping cults, or shape shifing alien lizards, and THAT is what everyone is getting
into fistfights over.