Apparently some people are afraid of "conspiracy theories" because there are a lot of real conspiracy theories afoot.

If the official account of 9-11 is wrong as far as who is actually complicit or responsible for the attack, then the "real killers" are still out there.

So the answer to the question is that the "real killers" are afraid of 9-11 conspiracy theories because some of them are bond to mention them as suspects.

In your world, to you, maybe.

But nothing is as it seems.

In my world, reality trumps fantasy..

Nothing is what it seems, but that doesn't mean everything is a conspiracy..

No one is afraid of these theories.

They are so asinine and absurd that they just can't be taken seriously.

In all the years that have passed since 9-11, there has not been one logical or even remotely plausible scenario in which trumps the science put forth by several independent and properly peer reviewed studies.

Throwing s**t at a wall hoping something might stick is not science.

And that is about the extent of it all.

Apparently a lot of people are afraid of alternative media, conspiracy theories, and freedom of speech because they work very hard to shut people up and confuse the issues and ridicule anyone who disagrees with the status quo.

If the system is corrupt, (and we all know it is) then you can't trust the "science" if the scientist are dependent on the system for grants, salaries etc.

Simple and basic logic.

Who do you really trust?

'Apparently'?

so what you are saying is that the only ethical people in the world are the ones exposing the "truth" deemed by those supposedly exposing it.

anyone that provides evidence contrary to this "truth" is part of the corrupt system..

that is a very convenient excuse..

oh.. you went to MIT and don't believe my "truth".. well I don't believe your findings because you are part of the corrupt system..

nah nah nah nah

You should not try to put words in my mouth. No, that is not what I am saying.

I would say to you, "Read my lips" but you can't see me, so I will post it again. This is what I am saying:

If the system is corrupt, (and we all know it is) then you can't trust the "science" if the scientist are dependent on the system for grants, salaries etc.

Simple and basic logic.
Question is: Who do you really trust?

1. If the system is corrupt... (Maybe you don't think it is. I think it is.)

2. Then...

3. You can't trust the "science" if that science is dependent on the system for funding, grants, salaries etc.

(Maybe you don't think it is, but I think it is.)

THEREFORE: Depending on what YOU believe.... you can either trust "the science" or not.

(I don't.)

Plain and simple basic logic.


On the opposite hand, you may think our system is not corrupt or you may think that science is independent of the system -(corrupt or not)and in these cases, then you may trust science.

(I'm not that trusting.)

So depending on what you believe, you can chose who you trust.

I can only speak for myself and I can only tell you who I trust and who I don't trust and what I believe and what I don't believe. I am trying to show you my logic.

If the system is corrupt, (I see that it is) and if science depends on that system for funding (I see that it does.) then how can I trust science if the system is corrupt?

I can't.

The same goes for the administration/government.

You would have to understand at least a little science to understand how it works.

Your logic is non-existent.

I do understand "a little" about science and what science is. I'm not a moron. You seem to think that no one but you understands science.

I don't trust the current scientific community (or "how it works") for the most part and I certainly don't trust your logic. I think the current scientific community is corrupted and has been compromised.

Our current scientific community is dependent on the system and the system is corrupt.

I will show you tomorrow how the corrupt system has corrupted our scientific community.

I can't wait! There should be laughs aplenty in this one MW!

I bet there is an alien in there somewhere!

Then...................
The Aliens Invaded!


Funny how the Official Version is always mentioned,as if anyone were discussing that!
What we are discussing is the total Impossibility of the Truther's Versions!

Okay, on second thought I might not bother. I don't need this crap. You people are not worth even a minute of my time. I'm busy.

Now you have said this to me in a previous post: "I try to have an open mind."

Really?

From your response above I can clearly see that you (and your buddies) are all geared up to laugh and make fun of anything that I post, no matter what it is, so your minds are already made up and you are prepared to laugh and ridicule and make fun.

This is where you demonstrate clearly that you do not even attempt or "try" to have an open mind. In fact, you have failed completely.

Your mind is closed like a steel trap from the very beginning. You have no clue how to have an open mind. When you discount others as you do, and throw out everything they may know, you have closed a possible avenue for learning something.

Conrad,

The reason for alternative theories of 9-11 is because of the complete and utter failure of the official version.

It is a pretty obvious total disaster of propaganda. Very few people believe it.

Instead of worrying about "truther" versions, you should ask questions about the official version of 9-11 and see how many of them get answered.

But you won't because you are trained and conditioned to believe the lies of the political machine.

Your earlier post that posited the following lacked any form of coherent logic and therefore, it is a reasonable extrapolation that if this was the flawed logic your source material intended to support, it too would be specious.

If the system is corrupt, (and we all know it is) then you can't trust the "science" if the scientist are dependent on the system for grants, salaries etc.

Simple and basic logic.
Question is: Who do you really trust?

1. If the system is corrupt... (Maybe you don't think it is. I think it is.)

2. Then...

3. You can't trust the "science" if that science is dependent on the system for funding, grants, salaries etc.

(Maybe you don't think it is, but I think it is.)

THEREFORE: Depending on what YOU believe.... you can either trust "the science" or not.

(I don't.)

Plain and simple basic logic.

No, it's not 'plain and simple logic' for its premise is based on an assumption that is ignorant and flawed.

Your model for your premise: Government has exhibited examples of corruption, therefore all government is corrupt.

Do you see the logical flaw in this premise?

If all government is corrupt and the government allocates the funding to scientists, the scientists will be corrupted in order to receive said funding.

Again, do you not see the inherent flaw in this premise. Furthermore, it presumes that all funding is provided by the government, and it presumes that all scientists work for the government, because if this is not the case, then scientists from the gubernatorial and private sector would converse and the fraud would be exposed. Despite claims of media control, journalists would then be contacted and the whole scam would be exposed.

I predict that your so-called 'proof' would demonstrate links between the scientific sector and government funding, but I really doubt it would have actually proved any form of corruption within the scientific community as recipients of this funding. It may have even demonstrated isolated cases of scientists being manipulated by the funding source (which may not necessarily be negative), but it would have assumed this to be universal.

It would be more of the infantile 'proof' that you have used to demonstrate that Jews manipulate the media. Experience tells me that your sources would not prove any such thing, just the links that I pointed out earlier.

Prove me wrong.

To be clear, I said the System is corrupt, (not the "government.")

For sure the government has been corrupted by the over all system, but the system and the government are not the same thing. The system is the Banking system of Elite that funds the politicians, the schools, the foundations, colleges etc. The "system" is not merely "the government."




You apparently don't really read my posts. I have said that the Jewish people do not control, manipulate or own the Media. The Rothschild/Morgan family dynasties do. I have also claimed that the Rothschilds and Morgan family dynasties are not Jews.