9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

Originally posted by _Del_
Every thread becomes "what Ultima thinks and why 'believers' are immature and stupid"...

No its more about me posting evidence when asked and the believers not poting evidnece when asked.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Your evidence is usually about as strong as my argument for the all lead SR-71, and is frequently contradicted in the source you yourself have cited. When that fails you call people names. It's disappointing for people who think there may be something lacking in the official story but have to spend hours sifting through the chaff to find wheat...

Originally posted by Disclosed You made the statement, I answered it....your own words.

Then i answered your statment then you state that it was not what the thread was about.

Why do you have to twist post and lie? I bring up the official story, then you post an answer about the the official story then when i bring up the official story again you state it isnot what the thread is about.

As far as the mods go i am sure they have warned you enough.

Originally posted by _Del_
Your evidence is usually about as strong as my argument for the all lead SR-71, and is frequently contradicted in the source you yourself have cited.

Yes your argument about the lead SR-71 is just a good example of what you and the believers usually post for information and evindece.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Why do you have to twist post and lie? I bring up the official story, then you post an answer about the the official story then when i bring up the official story again you state it isnot what the thread is about.

Perhaps you should re-read my posts, ULTIMA1. You seem to get all worked up over them...and read more into them than there really is. I'm just trying to correct the mis-information that the NSA seems to be feeding to the public. Perhaps some covert psy-op, to spread misinformation and confusion about 9/11.

Hmmm....

As far as the mods go i am sure they have warned you enough.

Nope, you are incorrect. I'm doing just fine on here, and multiple other forums...some where you no longer are aloowed to post. Hmmm.

I've yet to receive communication from a mod, with the exception of one time in which I stated you said something demonstrably untrue, but it was apparently not allowed to call you a "liar". In retrospect, the use of the word was probably inflammatory. You, however, seem to have free reign to call anyone a "lier" whenever you choose. Maybe I should use the alert button more.


[edit on 18-5-2008 by _Del_]

Originally posted by Disclosed
Perhaps you should re-read my posts, ULTIMA1. You seem to get all worked up over them...and read more into them than there really is.

Well let me quote your post where you mention the damage claimed by the official story, so everyone can see that you brought it up also.

That means you think there is a small chance it could have done the damage claimed in the official story.

[edit on 18-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Here's an alert. Everyone needs to return to the topic.

And the topic isn't each other, in case you've missed that.

I hope there's no misunderstanding on this point.

As far as a conspiracy, the official story is based on a conspiracy of the terrorist planning and hijacking planes.

But aside from that,
There is plenty of evidence that the government had plenty of warning about something happening around that time and even knew it would involve hijackaings.

So the queston becomes why did the government not do anything like raise the security levels at the airports?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA....you raise a good question.

Why DIDN'T the 'Powers That Be', the 'PTB'....

allow the truth to come out?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Why DIDN'T the 'Powers That Be', the 'PTB'....

allow the truth to come out?

Well their are 2 theories about this.

1. The PTB underestimated the information they were given.

2. They used the infomration they were given to thier advantage, and used the 9/11 attack as a reason to go to war. (meaning they let it happen)

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well their are 2 theories about this.

1. The PTB underestimated the information they were given.

2. They used the infomration they were given to thier advantage, and used the 9/11 attack as a reason to go to war. (meaning they let it happen)

I can't argue over that possibility as it's what I call an 'achievable' conspiracy. It doesn't need space beams, fusion bombs, holograms, fake plane crashes, missiles, orchestrated demolitions etc etc and could be held to an 'inner circle' of those with knowledge of it quite easily.

The main thing is all the evidence would fit exactly as it does without the conspiracy because it's at the lowest level. It requires no overt action and, in fact, relies on the lack of pre-emptive action to make possibility #2 'doable' with considerable international support for the initial retaliation after the event.

All it needs is evidence beyond theory because a comedy of high-level errors would give the exactly same impression.

I hear a lot about the administration deliberately allowing(or causing) the attack to drum up public support for the war. In my mind, I haven't really seen anything that would lead me to believe that the administration really gives a damn about public opinion. Public opinion says there should be an immediate withdrawal, but I don't see anything happening there. If this administration wanted to go to war, it was going to war; public opinion be damned.

Originally posted by _Del_
I hear a lot about the administration deliberately allowing(or causing) the attack to drum up public support for the war.

But history has shown that the government has allowed or helped cause attacks to gain suport for war. Pearl Harbor and the USS Liberty are just 2 examples of this.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But history has shown that the government has allowed or helped cause attacks to gain suport for war. Pearl Harbor and the USS Liberty are just 2 examples of this.

You keep mentioning the Liberty -- What war did the Liberty attack drum up public support for? I won't comment on your Pearl Harbor beliefs farther than to say it's unfairly revisionist.

[edit on 18-5-2008 by _Del_]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
Every thread becomes "what Ultima thinks and why 'believers' are immature and stupid"...

No its more about me posting evidence when asked and the believers not poting evidnece when asked.

Evidence? Do you mean like your claims about the steel in the F4 where you put certain lines in bold that say nothing about steel?

You are the exact type of person who make people laugh at conspiracy theory believers....a person who will skew anything to fit his story and covers his ears so he can't hear anything else.

Originally posted by _Del_
I won't comment on your Pearl Harbor beliefs farther than to say it's unfairly revisionist.

Well all you have to do is look at the decoded documents we have to see that the government knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor before it happened.

I would suggest you go to the National Crypologic Museum page of the NSA website to see information on the any of the things i have posted about.

[edit on 18-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by scottie18
Evidence? Do you mean like your claims about the steel in the F4 where you put certain lines in bold that say nothing about steel?

You are the exact type of person who make people laugh at conspiracy theory believers

1. I have posted lots of information and sources that state the amount of steel in the F-4. Just like

The fact of the J-79 engine needing the large steel heatshield.

The fact of the Keel and rear sections are made from steel.

The Germans would not call the F-4 the "IRON HOG" if as mostly made of aluminum.

A pilot would not call his plane "STEEL STALLION" if it was mostly made of aluminum.

2. When have i ever stated anything about a conspiracy theory? The only conspiracy theory is the official story thats based on a conspiracy.


[edit on 18-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by scottie18
Evidence? Do you mean like your claims about the steel in the F4 where you put certain lines in bold that say nothing about steel?

You are the exact type of person who make people laugh at conspiracy theory believers

1. I have posted lots of information and sources that state the amount of steel in the F-4. Just like

The fact of the J-79 engine needing the large steel heatshield.

The fact of the Keel and rear sections are made from steel.

The Germans would not call the F-4 the "IRON HOG" if as mostly made of aluminum.

A pilot would not call his plane "STEEL STALLION" if it was mostly made of aluminum.

2. When have i ever stated anything about a conspiracy theory? The only conspiracy theory is the official story thats based on a conspiracy.


[edit on 18-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

1) So the "proof" you posted is you saying that certain parts are steel (does not prove that "most" of the plane is steel and even you said 40% which is not "most.") and nicknames that people gave the planes....because we all know that nicknames are assigned based on exactly what the object or person is made of.

2) So an official story exists and you spend all of your time trying to rebunk it (saying the government is behind it) but you don't think that you are a conspiracy theorist?!?!?!

I can't wait for your response...it's going to be a laugh riot....again.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The Germans would not call the F-4 the "IRON HOG" if as mostly made of aluminum.

A pilot would not call his plane "STEEL STALLION" if it was mostly made of aluminum.

The pilots wouldn't call the SR-71 the "Lead Sled" if it was mostly made of titanium...