• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Substantiating the US Government Official Conspiracy Theory

C

camlok

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
6,268
Reaction score
614
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is a thread for all those who believe that the US Government Official Conspiracy Theory is an accurate representation of what happened on September 11, 2001, in New York City, to provide evidence and argument supporting it.
 
It has been discussed on numerous forums, including this one in many threads. There is no need to rehash the same subject.
Try going to the new thread regarding controlled demolition. It is a place for those who believe in the CD of the WTC can lay out the explanation and proof.

It could be interesting how the missile , thermite, nuke, laser, energy beam, C4 believers handle the alternate explanations to the controlled demolition.
 
And yet not an anti-truther can provide evidence for the US government conspiracy theory. Telling.

You can't explain anything.
 
camlok said:
And yet not an anti-truther can provide evidence for the US government conspiracy theory. Telling.

You can't explain anything.
Click to expand...

Not true. Research this forum and the web. Much is out there for those who wish to learn regarding the fire induced collapse after building damage.

What evidence do you have that the hijacked airlines did not strike the twin towers?
 
mike2810 said:
Not true. Research this forum and the web. Much is out there for those who wish to learn regarding the fire induced collapse after building damage.
Click to expand...

So all you US government conspiracy theory anti-truthers can't provide anything. Odd.

What evidence do you have that the hijacked airlines did not strike the twin towers?
Click to expand...

I just asked you about that in POST#148 at,

https://www.debatepolitics.com/cons...racy-theory-usg9-11oct-15.html#post1067203804
 
camlok said:
So all you US government conspiracy theory anti-truthers can't provide anything. Odd.



I just asked you about that in POST#148 at,

https://www.debatepolitics.com/cons...racy-theory-usg9-11oct-15.html#post1067203804
Click to expand...

Odd? I just responded the way you have responded when asked questions. Guess your the only one who can use that tactic.

I know you know how to search. You will find your answers. You did not ask me for evidence that the hijacked airlines DID NOT strike the twin towers. Sorry, your wrong again.

You asked " how did the "nose cone" of the WTC2 jet manage to go thru two walls of 14" steel box columns in perfect shape?" So you admit the airlines did strike the towers. That is a start.
"
 
camlok said:
This is a thread for all those who believe that the US Government Official Conspiracy Theory is an accurate representation of what happened on September 11, 2001, in New York City, to provide evidence and argument supporting it.
Click to expand...

Look, why keep playing these games and maintaining this charade?

We all know and agree that the only conspiracy is that the gov't is trying to pretend an attack of massive proportion took place on 9/11.

Nothing actually happened. The buildings are all still standing. There was no attack, as you've admitted.

This is getting really old.
 
mike2810 said:
Odd? I just responded the way you have responded when asked questions. Guess your [you're, mike] the only one who can use that tactic.

I know you know how to search. You will find your answers. You did not ask me for evidence that the hijacked airlines DID NOT strike the twin towers. Sorry, your [?] wrong again.

You asked " how did the "nose cone" of the WTC2 jet manage to go thru two walls of 14" steel box columns in perfect shape?" So you admit the airlines did strike the towers. That is a start.
"
Click to expand...

And, " how did the "nose cone" of the WTC2 jet manage to go thru two walls of 14" steel box columns in perfect shape?"
 
Tanngrisnir said:
L

This is getting really old.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. The anti-truthers can't provide any evidence to support the US government conspiracy theory.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Nor can you produce
Click to expand...

How did the "nose cone" of the WTC2 jet manage to go thru two walls of 14" steel box columns in perfect shape?

Why is the nose cone roughly 30 to 35 feet long?
 
Last edited:
camlok said:
How did the "nose cone" of the WTC2 jet manage to go thru two walls of 14" steel box columns in perfect shape?

Why is the nose cone roughly 30 to 35 feet long?
Click to expand...

Holograms, as you've already admiited. Nothing happened on 9/11, as we both confirm and agree on.
 
camlok said:
Nope, there is a shadow. How could the "nose cone" be 35 feet long?
Click to expand...

Shadows can be hologramed, silly.

I'm glad we agree that nothing happened.

It's good that we're finding closure on this and moving forward.
 
camlok said:
And, " how did the "nose cone" of the WTC2 jet manage to go thru two walls of 14" steel box columns in perfect shape?"
Click to expand...

The vid you posted on the other thread where you brought up the nose cone is trying to say it was a missile. Let me get this straight. You believe thermite was used along with a missile strike. Is that correct?

If so , why would they need both a missile and thermite?
 
mike2810 said:
The vid you posted on the other thread where you brought up the nose cone is trying to say it was a missile. Let me get this straight. You believe thermite was used along with a missile strike. Is that correct?

If so , why would they need both a missile and thermite?
Click to expand...

You make all sorts of invalid assumptions/anti-truths in an attempt to divert and obfuscate.

It doesn't matter what someone else says. It appears to be a BBC video, which you would know if you weren't so frightened to view it. It is evidence of the day which you are trying not to discuss, the same as your fellow travelers have been doing when asked this same question days ago.

You were there lurking, why didn't you raise this there where the issue is being discussed?

Why is this 35 foot long "nose cone" so smooth and undamaged?

Are nose cones 35 feet long?
 
camlok said:
You make all sorts of invalid assumptions/anti-truths in an attempt to divert and obfuscate.

It doesn't matter what someone else says. It appears to be a BBC video, which you would know if you weren't so frightened to view it. It is evidence of the day which you are trying not to discuss, the same as your fellow travelers have been doing when asked this same question days ago.

You were there lurking, why didn't you raise this there where the issue is being discussed?

Why is this 35 foot long "nose cone" so smooth and undamaged?

Are nose cones 35 feet long?
Click to expand...

Glad you not photo interpreter. To answer your question one has to accept your premise. I don't so there is no need to answer.

Insulting and trying to bait by claiming someone is frightened is lame. I watched the vid. Saw no missile. The full 41 frightening seconds. /sarcasm
 
mike2810 said:
Glad you not photo interpreter. To answer your question one has to accept your premise. I don't so there is no need to answer.

Insulting and trying to bait by claiming someone is frightened is lame. I watched the vid. Saw no missile. The full 41 frightening seconds. /sarcasm
Click to expand...

You can measure the "nose cone" for yourself. I have never once stated it WAS a missile. Therefore your assumption and that I have/had a "premise" are not valid.

Call it a stallion's dong, if you want.

You don't need to watch it all. Freeze it at 6 seconds and step it forward one second at a time. At 9 seconds it is as full as you can get it because at 10 seconds it is engulfed in a fireball.

At 9 seconds you can do a rough measure. I get 30 to 35 feet long, or more, but the section nearest the tower is not clear.
 
camlok said:
You can measure the "nose cone" for yourself. I have never once stated it WAS a missile. Therefore your assumption and that I have/had a "premise" are not valid.

Call it a stallion's dong, if you want.

You don't need to watch it all. Freeze it at 6 seconds and step it forward one second at a time. At 9 seconds it is as full as you can get it because at 10 seconds it is engulfed in a fireball.

At 9 seconds you can do a rough measure. I get 30 to 35 feet long, or more, but the section nearest the tower is not clear.
Click to expand...

How did you determine the scale to use to take your measurement?

What I see is debris, dust cloud and explosion from the impact of the aircraft into the building.



What I see is debris and a large dust cloud. Did you notice
 
mike2810 said:
How did you determine the scale to use to take your measurement?

What I see is debris, dust cloud and explosion from the impact of the aircraft into the building.

What I see is debris and a large dust cloud. Did you notice
Click to expand...

Of course I noticed the last thing you mentioned, mike. AFTER 9/10 seconds.

As I said,

You don't need to watch it all. Freeze it at 6 seconds and step it forward one second at a time. At 8 seconds just the tip is emerging.

At 9/10 seconds it is as full as you can get it because at a late 10 seconds [as described by the counter] it is engulfed in a fireball.

At 9 seconds you can do a rough measure. I get 30 to 35 feet long, or more, but the section nearest the tower is not clear.
 
In 1998, Philip Zelikow, the ring master of the 911 Commission wrote an article in the Foreign Affairs journal called

Catastrophic Terrorism: Imagining the Transformative Event

Watch the folllowing video from 1:07 on for a short period to 2:35, wherein it describes the 911 plan.

Remembering 911: Phillip Zelikow, and the Neo Conservative Agenda

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biuI9Vi6YLY
 
camlok said:
Of course I noticed the last thing you mentioned, mike. AFTER 9/10 seconds.

As I said,

You don't need to watch it all. Freeze it at 6 seconds and step it forward one second at a time. At 8 seconds just the tip is emerging.

At 9/10 seconds it is as full as you can get it because at a late 10 seconds [as described by the counter] it is engulfed in a fireball.

At 9 seconds you can do a rough measure. I get 30 to 35 feet long, or more, but the section nearest the tower is not clear.
Click to expand...

How did you establish your scale for the measurement?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom