Fandom Forums - View Single Post - The 9/11 Conspiracy
View Single Post
Old 10-27-2009, 12:10 AM   #170
mewmew's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Manila
Posts: 426
Thanks: 154
Thanked 196 Times in 118 Posts
mewmew is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Solving conspiracies isn’t the domain of the Philosophers and Psychologist. This is the battle ground of structural engineers, architects, chemist and physicist. Where everything must be put into consideration; from WTC design to withstand hurricane winds and airplane crashes, fundamentals on building collapse, properties of flame and steel and even demolition aftermaths.
Solving conspiracies? LOLOLOL. You've already concluded that there was a conspiracy cos you're already pointing fingers! Then now you solve it? LOLOLOLOL Dude, was I refuting your evidence from the physical angle?? How stupid are you to not understand that? LOLOLOLOLOL. There are different angles in a conspiracy and you're only talking about the physical side of the "conspiracy", which is hardly evidence in a conspiracy theory. And im refuting from an angle that no conspiracy theorists have ever defended against, a reason why no conspiracies have ever been proven. NOBODY INVOLVED HAS ACTUALLY SPOKEN ABOUT IT. A quarter of the conspiracy is the idea/plan; another quarter for material factor but the greater half consists of the people who carry it out. Out of the innumerable people involved in your "conspirucy duh", has anyone actually spoken about it? How many people does the conspirators need to monitor more than a hundred thousand people involved to not to blurt anything about the "conspiracy"? How many media were involved in the 9/11 coverup? How many people rigged the buildings, the planes, the security? innumerable people numbering easily in the hundreds of thousands to millions. and not one spoke? Did you remember a true government scandal such as Watergate? less than 50 people were involved yet about a quarter of them spoke about it. Are you sure that humans carried out the conspiracy and not super intelligent bees or aliens? And I haven't even mentioned Philosophy in here LOL. TO DUMB IT ALL DOWN FOR YOU, as long as HUMANS are involved, it is the domain of PSYCHOLOGY.

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja
Everything must be taken into accounts before you can give a strong logical explanation of what happened at WTC Towers and WTC 7. As for Miburo, I believe he want to be considered as a mere logical spectator who happens to be skeptical and nothing more.

Mibs, if you want to play safe, you better spectate outside the ring. Also, I asked Miburo if he can travel through a close door as fast as with an open door; he logically answered:

Please Mibs don’t use your head literally to open a door.
Everything taken into account? are you joking? You mean, your biased "presentation" is taking everything into account? You haven't even answered any question in here correctly. You're making me laugh. You're only focused on the material side, which you haven't proven, and the blanks filled in by fiction. Again, how bout giving us a head count of the all people involved in your conspiracy? and how are they making them not talk about it. don't give me your "powerfull peopel involved duhhrr." only 1% of the world are powerful people and its most F$%^ing likely that their not amongst the people who rigged the buildings, crashed the planes and made the coverup possible. Why do conspiracy theories always stay as conspiracy theories again? Cos its biased and cannot be proven, unlike real theories! Conspiracy theories never takes into account the chaos and human factor. Everything is systematic in your theories, but that's not what happens in real life. Ex. "the WTC towers were supposed to take a 707 in the face duhhr and not colllaps duh. so THE ONLY EXPLANATION CAN BE shape charges and thermites blah blah"

So, this makes my photo a fiction then. Dude, you better educate yourself in how investigators do their work and also have yourself familiarize with Surveillance camera.

Like I said, Alex Jones provided a good photo. And that’s it. The photo was also supported by structural engineer Mr. Ramon Gilsanz. You were sending the wrong warning here my friend. I hope this will also serves as a warning to all people who read this, especially you Mew

DIDN't YOUR POST SAY THAT ALEX JONES WAS YOUR EXPERT IN THE FIRST PLACE? LOLOLLOLOLOLOLOL. That wasn't even Alex Jones' photo LOLOLOLOL.. He grabbed the photo floating in the net and put it in his film. Major LOL to you. He is a professional conspiracy theorist. As a matter of fact, conspiracy theories really are FICTION. They are just composites of facts sewn into one elaborate well-endowed story. If a conspiracy theory is proven, which is yet to happen in the several millenia of human existence, then it will be considered NON-FICTION.

Since this FEMA report says WTC collapsed was due to fire. That’s it! …case close?
FEMA said in their INITIAL assessment of their data that WTC most likely collapsed due to damage caused by uncontrolled fire and massive structural damage caused by the jet crashes, and the case wasn't closed after that, you KNOW that cos majority of the DATA you use and refute here came from FEMA. Is FEMA a machine? No. Lots of humans were involved in the data gathering, which also involve subjective experiences of these data gatherers, thus inconsistencies will always exist. If inconsistencies didn't exist, im pretty sure that the data could have been gathered by machines and computed perfectly by machines. Can anyone assess a crime scene as huge as WTC perfectly? Other institutions are also called upon to assess the data gathered by FEMA, and everybody agreed with them. That was the GENERAL ASSESSMENT. There wasn't even mention of Muslim extremists or Bin Laden shit in their report, unlike the "rebuttal" of your so-called "experts" with footnotes (Silverstein, CIA and other shit) and commentaries that tries to dig up into the small inconsistencies and uncalculable chaos, while largely FICTIONALIZING parts to fill in the blanks. So who's more objective in their investigation? Who's more believable in the first place? You say the FEMA report is wrong but why do you still "selectively" take data from it? Ex. your seismic reading. If you already deemed it wrong, you shouldn't treat parts of it that support your theory right.

Last edited by mewmew; 10-27-2009 at 01:01 AM.
mewmew is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mewmew For This Useful Post:
Azumi (10-27-2009), Mal (10-27-2009), Miburo (10-28-2009)