Nobody is arguing with you that there are evil people in this world. Of course there are people in this world who want to harm us. They are the ones who attacked us that day! But you are trying to create an evil organization similar to what we’d find in a James Bond novel - those kinds of groups just don’t exist in the real world. And you have provided nothing of substance to prove that your imaginary group had any part in the attacks of 9/11
If a seemingly very intelligent and honest man like Robert Bowman can have these suspicions, I don’t feel too bad at falling for all this “Conspiracy BS”.
Go on, tell me that he’s just another misguided/deluded old man trying to get a bit of attention in his boring, quiet life.
There is evidence for the Big Bang.
You are simply attempting to nitpick and you’d doing it terribly. You don’t understand the issues involved and are basing your arguments on your ignorance.
You were showed your body parts and you ignore it. Don’t you care that your arguments have utterly no merit and are dismissed casually?
There is nothing honorable about not understanding what you’re talking about.
Did that at least answer your question?
Why bother to bring down the buildings anyway? Having planes flown into them wasn’t enough of an attack? Think of the horror that was going on before we saw those buildings coming down. We knew our country was being attacked and that people were suffering and dying horrible deaths. We watched their bodies as they leaped to their deaths. We had some idea of what was going on inside.
Why would there be a need for a conspiracy to plant explosives inside?
I’ve seen a reall government conspiracy come to fruition. I watched as the Watergate Conspiracy unfolded and brought down a president. And I watched as Dick Cheney’s office set out to get even with Joe Wilson even though it risked the lives of CIA operatives. Big conspiracies and little conspiracies.
But tell me WHY the buildings had to fall for the “mission” to be accomplished. They didn’t. They fell as a natural consequence.
Whatever. Do you have any response to the point that this plan doesn’t make any sense, the fact that there are no bodies of water near where the transponder of Flight 77 went off - it was maybe 300 miles inland - and the bodies Mr. Miskatonic showed you?
:rolleyes:
So the thread where I showed the evidence that it was unlikely that a missile was launched at the Pentagon and that a passenger plane indeed crashed into the Pentagon was in reality ignored by you?
Ok, I take it back, in the past **you **insisted that because you could not reply properly or that you were conceding the point you ignored specific posts. It is clear that you are not conceding anything and ignoring the posts on purpose.
You derbunkers make me piss my sides sometimes. Everyone on the side of the “OT” is a paragon of virtue and the best in their field, and everyone who opposes it is a bit misguided at best, or an outright traitor nutjob when you aren’t feeling too generous. Do you realise how unlikely it is that everyone on your side is telling the truth, and everyone else is full of shit?
You are quoting this person out of context to a degree that is willfully dishonest. She was stating that the aircraft was being flown in a manner that was unsafe, not that she didn’t believe it was a 757.
Here is the complete interview:
Still waiting for an answer about the bodies and that ocean in the middle of West Virginia.
That is not what I’m complaining about ivan, once again: do you deny that in the past you claimed that you were conceding the point if you did not reply to the post?
And what is happening now? Did you forget you did?
I notice that you are unwilling to address where you’ve been shown wrong. Don’t you think that admitting when you’re wrong is something that people should do?
I don’t think any of you are traitorous.
And the great thing about my theory is that I don’t need many people to be telling the truth, because the laws of physics, and the physical evidence are the basis of my argument. Arguably the most fundamental mistake the conspiracy theory makes is thinking that the truth functions like a real-life conspiracy does: one guy slips up and a conspiracy collapses, but if one guy gets something wrong about what’s true, suprisingly enough the truth doesn’t implode as a result of his error.
Not even when the man making the error is somebody as godlike and important as Robert Bowman. Or ivan astikov, for that matter.
You asked where the bodies from the plane are, and links were provided that showed the bodies. Will you acknowledge that your question was answered to your satisfaction?
So, a plane that was said to have almost vaporised, left almost fully intact bodies, that had previously been travelling in the plane? How does that happen then?
The credible conspiracy theorist is over on JREF. Look for posts by GregoryUrich.
:rolleyes:
As it was pointed before, it was not a small hole what the plane did at the Pentagon.
The small hole many truters posted many times in the past was a closeup of the second floor.
I don’t allocate any reverence to Robert Bowman, I just wonder why he’d support such thoughts if there was “nothing whatsoever” to worry about regarding these accusations.
My guess is you don’t understand what happens to a plane during a crash. The only thing that is almost vaporised here is your credibility.
The plane broke into little pieces. People got bounced, torn and burned.
So if there were no bodies on the planes, there must’ve been a conspiracy, and if there were bodies on the planes, there must’ve been a conspiracy.