…Both sides? Is there somehow some equivalency between the anti-trump folks and 9/11 truthers? Like, I realize they’re both pretty fervent in their opposition, but there’s worlds between them in terms of what they do. Like, here, let me add some more folks to your list, for the sake of having “both sides”:
Evolution advocates
Ken Ham
Scientists who accept relativity
Electric Universe Supporters
…You see how ridiculous this gets? Virtually any well-thought-out, well-backed, rational position could be placed on a list of people it is “futile to talk to”. And equally equated with any lunatic position based on absolutely fucking nothing. And personally, I think if you started showing real, significant evidence that racism in America was a thing of the past, or that women and men have equal opportunities and sexism isn’t still rampant and a part of day-to-day life, you’d do just fine talking to feminists and civil rights advocates. But to just claim that these movements are radical or not worth talking to… Nonsense.
It absolutely depends on what you want the conspiracy to be. If it’s about the buildings coming down then plainly you have a mountain of fact to surmount.
if it’s about two sets of elites interacting to facilitate, enable or choosing to ignore a group which might be at a stage of developing a terrorist act against the USA, then that mechanism is in place and has been for decades.
Look, elements within an elite can conspire successfully to invade an entire country, another elite can turn a blind eye to a plan to knock down a couple of towers.
We will absolutely never know but, given the history - especially between US and Saudi elites - why not.
The trouble is that we’ve heard that stupid question in various forms over a hundred times, and no evidence seems to support it, so is the question dropped? Hell, no! People like you just say “We will absolutely never know”, then ask the stupid question yet again. You, and others like you, are going to keep asking that stupid question until you get the answer you want, not the answer that actually exists-That is why you are "JAQ"ing off when you do this.
Do you have a cite for this? Why would ANY building being built have exemptions for “building and fire” codes? You believe that because the Port Authority owned them, they could ignore everything in the “how to build a safe skyscraper” handbook because they owned it?
I never read this before, but it doesn’t seem credible to me. How could these buildings have possibly been insured, or if what you say is true, how could any insurance policy be valid and pay off the owner after they collapsed?
The juxtaposition of conspiracy here is not particularly useful given that you are seemingly unequipped to name this ‘elite’ nor have you provided the motivation for this ‘elite’ to invade Afghanistan and occupy it for 13 years.
There are many groups or individuals that are held to account for 911 by the truth movement. What is it that makes you specifically target the US government, given all the possibilities that one could truly entertain?
And why would we absolutely never know? The precedents you have listed say otherwise but 911 appears to be a different case in your mind. Any reason why?
It was actually the Illuminati in the government working to take out the Mafia (in WTC 1&2) and the Lizard People (in WTC 7). I thought that was obvious.
Well, it turns out this is true but banal. With the famous Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US report and other red flags including foreign nationals training in flight schools to fly but not land planes, hindsight is full of warning signs that were missed or downplayed or not compiled into a single cohesive idea until it was too late.
If you want to imply something more sinister, it’s not enough to merely suggest it might be possible; you have to bring some actual evidence to the table. Heck, anything might be possible. It’s the classic conspiracy theorist who runs with the possible while ignoring the actual.
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. You say the same things that 9/11 Truthers or JAQ(Just Asking Questions)ers do wrt 9/11, so basically I’m simply pointing that out…and pointing that I’m un-surprised that you’d be in that category. I’m also un-surprised you attempt the standards connect the dots shuck and jive that many 9/11 CTer types have tried, namely you point to something the US has done in the past then attempt to link it to the possibility that 9/11 might have been done by the US. Just asking questions, right?
This link, and **running_coach’**s makes me curious as to what we are actually referring to.
According to the article:
So does that mean that the fire codes that the P.A. had previously exempted themselves from were procedural? (i.e. No surprise inspections, or maybe the P.A.didn’t have all of the “Fire Exit” lights illuminated, and wanted 72 hours to fix those types of issues before an inspection?) That, to me, is much different than the building’s fire-proofing requirements that were (or should have been) built into it.
Or are we talking about the building itself and the fire protection required to be built-in by NY building codes?
I guess what I am trying to understand is if the “building codes” that the P.A. “met or exceeded” are referring to 1) the fire-proofing elements for the building, (like fire-proofing of steel, or sprinkler systems, etc), 2) properly lit and identified escape routes in case of emergency, working fire extinguishers, etc, or 3) both?
“Conspiracy theorist”, imho, is defined by people who insist there is a conspiracy without regards to whether they have evidence that one exists. The vast, vast majority of 9/11 conspiracy theories fall short on this measure, with only one theory that makes sense with the evidence: that the attacks were a result of a conspiracy among high-ranking members of Al Qaeda.
Once the theory is proven by demonstrable evidence (documents, video, etc), (like Iran-Contra) the nomenclature changes - it’s no longer a conspiracy but a scandal, a “-gate”, “corruption”, etc. But the conspiracy, by dent of exposure, is pretty much dead by then.
So, yes, the word “conspiracy” is used as a pejorative, especially here, because of this lack of evidence brought about by the conspiracy theorists. For example, this “THE PORT AUTHORITY DOESN’T FOLLOW NYC FIRE CODES!” argument brought in this thread is a perfect example. You read that and think “Huh. Why is that? Could this have had something to do with the Towers falling?”
But a simple reading shows:
They did follow the NYC codes when the buildings were built back in the late 60’s, early 70s.
The WTC was not up to 2001 compliance standards. However, neither is/was my house built in 1980.
Other federal and state agencies (not just in NY) have this same code exemption written in their charters, and it is a standard practice.
Other buildings not subject to local fire and building codes: Federal courthouses, embassies, the United Nations, and the NY subway system. There are many, many others, some very likely in your city.
And, in addition, there’s the implicit assumption that had the buildings been up to 2001 compliance standards that they would still be standing… an assumption that is never tested and can’t be proven, regardless of how many popsicle sticks you use in your model. (Old joke.)
So, yeah, if you believe that the PA’s lack of fire code compliance is evidence of some over-arching conspiracy… you’re a conspiracy theorist, with all the baggage that title holds.
In a war that can never end created at a time the Cold War had ended - have you seen the cost of Iraq and the on going bills for the war on terrah , the cost of Homeland security, etc. All that glorious government money.
The smartest spot of all was Google buying up chucks of the robotics industry but, for now look at drones These are glorious days for defence and security contractors: quite literally a war that can never end as long as you keep fueling the fire of rage, and keep your own people scared.
