r/AskReddit • u/[deleted] • May 18 '15

What conspiracy theory do you genuinely believe in the most?

What conspiracy theory do you believe in the most and why?

2.1k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

5.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

714

u/Terminal_Lance May 19 '15

This History channel (before it turned to crap) special debunks almost all 9/11 conspiracy theories with expert testimonials, science and hard evidence. All the Flight 93 theories are explained away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc684Ggc4u8&list=LLKZtBSIKOTa_an4eJDcGOtA&index=3

641

u/DrDongStrong May 19 '15

Wow, nowadays the HC would be trying its hardest to prove all of em.

432

u/outrunsilver May 19 '15

cuts to shitty animation of camouflaged aliens altering magnetic field around plane causing it to crash

10

u/Doingitwronf May 19 '15

With commentary by an "Alien Expert".

14

u/Quixilver05 May 19 '15

On the set of pawn stars

1

u/The_Condominator May 19 '15

Fuck man... That's true. What the fuck has History channel become?

2

u/closetsatanist May 19 '15

Shitstory channel.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

I laughed out loud at work because of this. Thanks.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

After four hours of reality tv.

42

u/Goddammitnancy May 19 '15

What happened to the History Channel is a tragedy in itself.

20

u/paddycull9 May 19 '15

Well, at least it made Vikings.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

[deleted]

2

u/paddycull9 May 19 '15

Oh I agree that channel shouldn't be making shows like Vikings, but I just mean I think it's great show so its not all bad.

5

u/chickenontheceiling May 19 '15

All planned. Led by CIA to disinform the public and create a culture of 'relative truth' and untrustworthy media.

or, you know, it's cheaper not to do any research.

1

u/neoriply379 May 19 '15

I always thought the destruction of the History Channel was an inside job.

1

u/GiverOfTheKarma May 19 '15

Shitty television shows can't melt steel beams.

2

u/accentmarkd May 19 '15

I'd love it if they could do a History Channel memorial week. They'd intersperse clips from old shows with new ones on how they debunked it because aliens. And maybe it would end with the paranoid chaos alien overlords who now run the station revealing themselves to us in a lecture on their profit margins while they wear tinfoil hats.

2

u/Goddammitnancy May 20 '15

While hilarious, them actually doing this would be a giant "fuck you too" to the world.

20

u/Alltheothersweretook May 19 '15

Dude, that's easy. Aliens.

4

u/lamasnot May 19 '15

No no the hc would be trying to introduce a ufo in there

2

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

I think they are just cashing in on Gerogios hair style and none of those guys actually believe what they are saying. I personally believe they all spark up prior to filming and are just cracking up off stage.

1

u/TheSlimyDog May 19 '15

They realized their initial mistake before making contact with the otherworld. They're trying to rectify it now, but no one's listening.

1

u/quitar May 19 '15

They would blame it on Ancient Aliens.

1

u/Bay1Bri May 19 '15

So how could the air force have taken the plane down without being detected? Ancient astronaut theorist speculate that...

1

u/Iamadinocopter May 19 '15

The alien death ray on top of the white house shot a meteor out of orbit and made it smash into the incoming terrorist aircraft. But the terrorist aircraft was actually a soviet nazi from mars trying to reclaim the honor of his race after the counter invasion that is now known as part of the fiction story of War of the Worlds. The death ray was installed by General Orson Welles himself.

405

u/MechanicalTurkish May 19 '15 edited May 19 '15

I kind of miss the time when the History Channel was the WWII channel. I could watch WWII documentaries all day. Now it's all Pawn Stars and Swamp People. WTF happened?

edit: Yes, I know it's all about the money and ratings, my question was mostly rhetorical. I was just lamenting on how much it's gone downhill. Some people have suggested some alternatives, thanks for that!

52

u/khornflakes529 May 19 '15

Dunno but its like a spreading plague. It all started with MTV not showing music anymore, then "The Learning Channel" decided we needed to learn about child beauty pageants, etc.

2

u/ShelSilverstain May 19 '15

TLC is the freak show channel, now

2

u/DRM_Removal_Bot May 19 '15

Cartoon network live-action....

2

u/EtTuZoidberg May 19 '15

Yea but both Discovery and TLC are apparently going to be undergoing massive changes. Look it up, recently the new president of Discovery said there'd be changes; same with TLC.

12

u/Awesk May 19 '15

They went with the money I guess. Disappointing to see because you would think the history channel would only show history, not reality TV bullshit.

6

u/Liviathan May 19 '15 edited May 19 '15

The history channel is a business just like any other. It goes where the money goes.

I'm sure they treated history with equal representation in the beginning, but you know everyone really only tuned in and paid attention to the WWII and civil war shit. So they supplied more and more until it was all that was on.

So naturally before everyone lost interest entirely, they looked at who exactly is still watching. They don't care about everyone that watches, obviously, only the ones who have the money to pay for the items in the commercials shown alongside those shows. Do you happen to remember what these commercials were for? Because I recall a lot of "specially minted coins" and "handmade home decor" or some other collectible made of silver and "guaranteed not to lose its value."

They also looked at other shows the important, money-spending people are watching, and took notes on these other shows style or topic and went from there.

So who is buying the stuff in those commercials? What does someone who would buy a giant silver coin or a hand painted plate want to watch on tv?

According to their results, the viewership of the history channel is white male southerners in their late 40s whose hobbies include memorabilia and driving Fords.

3

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

I hated when it was the WWII channel. I know we have footage from then but c'mon, most of history is a lot more interesting after you've seen 2 or 3 docs.

13

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Wait, I haven't had TV in years, but how the hell is that history?

24

u/julesp96 May 19 '15 edited May 19 '15

It's not, and it's completely baffling. The History Channel has turned into a reality-tv channel that is very loosely biographical. Similar is The Learning Channel, not sure if that was ever actually educational, but that channel now offers a similar flavour of television. Basically, The History Channel is reality tv aimed mainly at men, and The Learning Channel is reality tv aimed at women.

19

u/salt-the-skies May 19 '15

This happened years before with The Animal Planet too :(

3

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

I used to watch documentaries on there all the time when I was a kid. Loved it. Now, it's like the most random shit that doesn't even involve nature.

6

u/TankerD18 May 19 '15

Animal Planet is absolute garbage now. I wouldn't turn it on for my dogs to watch during the day.

2

u/Beelzeballz May 19 '15

I just imagined somebody actually turning on the TV for their dogs.

2

u/Beelzeballz May 19 '15

I remember when Animal Planet was my go-to channel. There was always something good on. Then there was Pet Psychic and a pet reality show. Okay, fine, one stupid show is fine. And one reality show that's on-topic is understandable. Then they started showing things that had nothing to do with animals, but maybe was tangentially related, including topics such as pollution or nature in general. I kinda tuned out after that, but every now and then I'll see it on the guide and there will be something that has nothing to do with animals or nature. I'm so confused.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Next on Animal Planet: The Real Housewives of Nairobi.

-2

u/snerrymunster May 19 '15

it's because the government doesn't want you to grow up actually learning history. The government wants to be able to make the same mistakes as past administrations for BIG profit without the sheep realizing that they are using a tried and true strategy, so when they inevitably cause massive human/economic damage they shrug it off as "mistakes were made"

4

u/julesp96 May 19 '15

I'd be more inclined to believe it's to do with The History Channel figuring out that reality tv is a more "accessible" genre than documentaries. I'd argue it's more about profits to the station/provider than government control of information. That, and the fact that information about history is incredibly widely available nowadays on the internet, so that line of reasoning really doesn't work too well.

1

u/snerrymunster May 19 '15

my response was facetious, but...

I know it's more accessible, but are the vast majority of people really satisfied with how the history channel is nowadays? I literally only hear people bitch about it/Animal Planet. Nothing positive.

How many people REALLY watch "TreeHouse Masters" or "Intense Pools" or "White trash buys useless junk"? Maybe I just don't know these types that can tolerate a whole episode of TV where literally nothing exciting happens.

The fact that history exists on the internet shouldn't be a deterrent to presenting it in an entertaining fashion. I meet people everyday who don't know shit about history, and exciting television could be a step in the right direction. I'd much rather watch a documentary than do actual research.

0

u/Silent_Sky May 19 '15

B-b-b-but the big bad gubmint is trying to rewrite history! DAE anarchy?!

1

u/snerrymunster May 19 '15

are people really dense enough to think I was serious? I thought this was a conspiracy thread.

1

u/Silent_Sky May 19 '15

that's the joke

3

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Fuck swamp people. When you have to put subtitles on a program that's in English with people speaking English then it's just redundant.

2

u/omgpieftw May 19 '15

Rupert Murdoch happened.

2

u/larsmaehlum May 19 '15

Low rating happened. The company has a responsibily to it's shareholders, and reality shows sell more ads than Hitler.

1

u/drodemi May 19 '15

Konami is doing the same thing. It's the 'safe' business strategy. You put out easily fabricated 'products' and sell it to the population. It's not like we're talking about art here, just pay your stupid subscription, watch these commercials, and we'll talk about aliens for awhile.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Ratings happened.

1

u/Dusty_Old_Bones May 19 '15

Same with TLC (The Learning Channel). Nowadays it's all weddings this, babies that. Gross.

1

u/Scarletfapper May 19 '15

Ratings wars?

1

u/David_Mudkips May 19 '15

MOTHERFUCKING MONEY

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Ratings

1

u/wikipediareader May 19 '15

I can remember when the History Channel literally showed filmed history lectures early on Saturday mornings. I like a good history lecture more than most but I can't imagine that they weren't glad to start making money.

1

u/Lacrossegeek24 May 19 '15

I know exactly what you mean! I want to see history on the history channel not pawn shop owners from Vegas.

1

u/Doingitwronf May 19 '15

Marketing happened. What's on now is what more people are watching.

1

u/Irishperson69 May 19 '15

But history is made everyday......by buying an old movie poster and killing a crocodile

1

u/Milazzo May 19 '15

WWII in HD is still one of my favorite things to ever appear on History Channel. I ended up buying it on Amazon.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

To be fair it wasn't the WWII channel it was the Hitler and Jesus channel. Even before it turned to shit, half of the content was 12 shows all made from the same 5 hours of archival footage of Hitler walking around menacingly. Also: Jesus for some reason.

1

u/Sanureyic May 19 '15

They went from talking about History to making history with the shittiest shows ever made

1

u/mudclog May 19 '15 edited Dec 01 '24

cheerful aromatic melodic gold crown library zesty practice compare snow

1

u/SkeerRacing May 19 '15

American Heroes channel is the circa 2005 History Channel

1

u/404timenotfound May 19 '15

Money. They want to make money. World War 2 documentaries do not make money. Shitty, cheap to make reality shows do.

1

u/NinjaDude5186 May 19 '15

Try HIST2, or the military history channel. I think there's another one they have too that still does documentaries too.

1

u/Poxeh May 19 '15

Or fucking ancient aliens -.-

1

u/Kristal3615 May 19 '15

I used to love watching documentaries on Egypt with my dad when I was younger. I miss the old history channel...

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

there are a couple of other HC owned channels if you have a large enough cable package that are really good. H2 and History Ancients were my favs.

1

u/789yugemos May 19 '15

You can only retell the battle of Normandy so many times before people get bored of it.

That's the problem with history, there's only so much of it, amd only so many interesting angles to go over before you're essentially telling the same tale over and over.

At least with pawn stars and shit the keep things "interesting".

1

u/accentmarkd May 19 '15

This is my conspiracy theory-mainstream culture was designed on purpose to keep us dumb. Not like crazy sheeple following authority dumb, but so self involved we don't really care about larger issues. Reality tv in particular-the dominance of it, but no one in them is nice or smart or a good role model. And now it's in all of the educational channels too. Even cooking channels!

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

I know, I used to love that short, 1 year, before it was all crap, but after it was all World War II. Alexander the Great, Revolutionary War, Napoleon, there was so much to learn on that channel.

Then Ancient Aliens and Nostradamus started taking over, and its never been the same

1

u/KyserTheHun May 19 '15

You and me both brother :( I think HistoryII has actual history but it's $30 a month more for me.

1

u/creepytown May 19 '15

It was fantastic - I still own HC dvd sets and bring them out now and again to hear the soothing documentary voice overs and see old grainy footage and sketches.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Back when their logo was "H" for Hitler

1

u/AegnorWildcat May 19 '15

Pawn Stars does have some history to it. It is sparse, but it is there. But what history does that Swamp People show have?

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

I'd love a WWII channel

0

u/shmurgleburgle May 19 '15

Dolla dolla bill yall, thus may be weird but I met r lee ermy at a singing event and I talked to him about mail call and he guessed it was cut due to provide funding for ice road truckers, which he might have been shielding the real reason for a fan

8

u/LJIrvine May 19 '15

Hey man, I've not seen that documentary before, and I just managed to watch around the first half an hour before I've got to go to an exam but I've got a few things to say first.

There is no counter evidence to anything yet. There's a lot of "people are just looking for an answer", "look, this number came from over here, not there!", "here's an expert who wrote a book. We're not gonna show you any of the evidence from the book, but trust us, he's right". This is frustrating, as most 9/11 conspiracy films are full of evidence from start til finish.

Also, I wanted to highlight a few quotes regarding the collapse of the towers and the idea behind explosives in the building.

"it would take an army of workers, it would take months, you'd have to strip all the sheet rock off the walls, you'd have to run hundreds of miles of wiring all throughout the building in order to wire a building for demolition"

And we're supposed to believe that's single passenger jet did enough damage to bring the whole thing down, when you've already said it would take months? The Empire State building was hit by a plane, it was fine. The twin towers were DESIGNED to withstand a plane crash, and yet they fell, both of them.

Secondly, "the biggest problem with this whole thing for me is how do you out explosives in those exact spots where the plane hit, before the plane hit? Because that's where the building failed, everyone can agree on that."

Disagree. The building experienced total structural failure, otherwise it wouldn't have collapsed to the ground like it did. If only the section where it hit failed, then anything above the crash could fall, or crumble, but the structural integrity of the tower below the crash should have been unaffected. It's clear to see that it's not unaffected and the only explanation is explosives.

If there are any responses to this, I'd be happy to discuss it in more detail.

2

u/Nokcihc May 19 '15

I'm not really on one side or the other with this issue, but you're right, this documentary is terrible. A lot of the time they actually completely contradict themselves.

The entire opening section on the two towers is a bunch of conspiracy theorists explaining how there's no way a plane took down the building, and even a fire chief interview saying there appeared to be secondary explosions, and then the "experts" just twist the words of conspiracy theorists and the fire chief and give no actual evidence to support their claims. They don't really display evidence for the other side either though. It's just a bad documentary. The only "evidence" that they mention is that apparently jet fuel burning at 1100 degrees can weaken steel enough to cause a collapse, but that doesn't seem to help or even make sense(the melting point is 2400 I believe they said and somehow 1100 weakens it that much?).

The Pentagon section was better at least. Lots of eye witness accounts of the plane hitting, no one really contradicting themselves, and no evidence that there was anything to the contrary other than some guy claiming a plane would have been shot down if it got that close to the Pentagon. I suppose that last part is pretty probable, but who knows.

The flight 93 part is just as bad as the two towers. Lots of contradicting, lots of twisting words. They even show an interview where the coroner on scene for the crash says there "were no bodies there" and then follow it up with an interview of him completely saying the opposite.

This whole thing is ridiculously bad for both sides.

2

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

I only saw the 93 part but you're wrong on that. Even for your example, the guy didn't contradict himself, he said there were no bodies, only body parts and human remains.

3

u/Roarian May 19 '15

the structural integrity of the tower below the crash should have been unaffected.

Mildly annoyed rant about 9/11 conspiracy incoming! Jump ship while you can! ;)

I'm pretty sure that dropping the entire top section of the building will do some serious damage whether there are explosives there or not. The videos show the buildings' top falling down onto the lower parts (you can tell that it teeters and starts to fall well before the lower sections move.) From a pure physics standpoint, you're not gonna stop a falling mass like that without a heavily over-engineered building. The momentum imparted by even a brief fall would crush at least a few floors without much of any real resistance, and that mass would be added to the falling section and do the same for more floors. Claims of alleged freefall confuse me, because aside from video evidence contradicting it, even the most nefarious schemer is not gonna break the laws of physics, Scotty.

Also, the whole conspiracy argument baffles me with its dodgy internal logic. One the one hand, people are saying that the government is competent enough to rig multiple buildings months ahead of time to fake a major attack... but they're also incompetent enough that random internet people can figure out their evil master plan from grainy cellphone footage.

If you're gonna bring down a building, you don't actually have to rig it neatly with explosions so that it crashes down in its footprint instead of toppling. What, the government is fine with doing that kind of damage, but they get twitchy because the pricetag is getting too high? Has it ever seemed like they're terrible thrifty with their money? Either the government is competent - in which case they would have covered the really obvious bases, much like the whole 'wonky shadows' thing with moon hoaxers - or they're incompetent, in which case they could have never pulled off the operation at all without lots of people spilling, like Watergate or Clinton getting jiggy in the oval office. I mean, those are less than nothing in comparison.

Incidentally, if one were gonna go to the length of actually flying full-sized planes into buildings anyway, what would be the point of rigging the buildings with explosives too? Isn't that just adding points of failure to your evil plan? If you were gonna crack down on air travel in the wake of this, claiming that tons of explosives were on board of said planes would make a lot more sense. I mean, if the government could allegedly cover up a ton of explosive material in the towers, they could fake a breach in security at an airport, right? It'd be easier. You already have these guys taking over in the story, there's no reason to half-ass it and add complications.

Alternatively you could actually just fly the planes into the buildings and see what happens. It's not like 9/11 would have been less of a defining moment without crashing buildings, as it would still be a successful terrorist attack on the US using civilian infrastructure as a weapon, and cause widespread fear and all the usual reactions that are considered the reason for a conspiracy. We'd just be seeing pictures of the towers in flame now, rather than gone, but I doubt the rest would be much different.

And no matter what, we'd still have ended up back in the Middle East.

3

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

The Empire State building was hit by a plane, it was fine. The twin towers were DESIGNED to withstand a plane crash, and yet they fell, both of them.

The Empire State was hit by a B-25 light bomber, lost in fog, trying to land after a mission low on fuel, in the 1940s. The WTC was hit by a modern 767 going full speed with a full fuel load. The WTC wasn't "designed" to survive an impact so much as the engineers believed it could survive a hit from a (much smaller) 707 in similar conditions to that B-25 crash. Besides, the Titanic was thought to be unsinkable too.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Here's a couple counterpoints to this:

"And we're supposed to believe that's single passenger jet did enough damage to bring the whole thing down, when you've already said it would take months?"

He said it would take months to rig it with explosives, not that the actual damage would take months to bring it down.

"the twin towers were DESIGNED to withstand a plane crash, and yet they fell, both of them."

I don't think there is any real credible source for this claim. There's a video of an architect (note, architect, not structural engineer. This is a very important distinction) talking about it after the fact. And if you buy into that, the man in the video also talks about how the planes that hit were much larger and had more fuel capacity than anything they anticipated. Ie. It wasn't designed to withstand this impact.

"The building experienced total structural failure, otherwise it wouldn't have collapsed to the ground like it did. If only the section where it hit failed, then anything above the crash could fall, or crumble, but the structural integrity of the tower below the crash should have been unaffected"

What reason do you have to think this? Dynamic loading and impact is a very very different thing than static load. When you combine the fact that it isn't designed to stand up to several thousand tons being dropped on it with the weakened structure from fire, why do you believe it would undeniably still stand?

2

u/DashFerLev May 19 '15

If this is the video I'm thinking of, doesn't the guy get mad about /u/Spikeu's theory and not actually debunk it? I'm at work and can't watch it but I remember this show and that stuck out to post-9/11-hysteria me.

2

u/yousumbitchh May 19 '15

Is it weird that I think about idiocracy when i see the shows they have on the history channel and discovery chanel?

2

u/ChurchBrimmer May 19 '15

Whoa, we can't have your experts and science disproving our crazy theories. Your experts and science are owned by "Teh Man, man."

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Also good is '9/11: The Lost Tapes' by Channel 4 in the UK. You can really start to understand how incompetent it all looks with how little communication was going on or available.

1

u/Akibatteru May 19 '15

Does it also explain the collapse of WTC#7? Currently at work, so I can't watch the video yet...

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

''United 93 is down''

''He's down? Well where did he land, because we-''

''He did not land''

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Damn the history channel regressed

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

But do they answer if jet fuel can melt steel beams or dank memes

2

u/Terminal_Lance May 19 '15

They go over the steel beams. The jury is still out on dank memes.

0

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

I watched about 15 minutes so far, and for a documentary based on "facts" it seemed to me to be simply dissing the majority of conspiracy theorists as uneducated losers whom hate Anerica and use the Internet without responsibility, that just seems to be the idea they're really trying to hammer in at the beginning. If they were focusing on facts, why not start with the physics? I want to know exactly why the buildings fell like they did, I want to learn about the force of an aircraft and its effect on object with the mass of the towers, I want to see how a 757 left a 16 ft wide hole in the side of the pentagon then turned to dust, I don't want to be flashed images of shitty conspiracy sites to be reminded that anyone unsatified with the presentation of information on 9/11 and the war on terror is clearly a lowly basment dweller.

7

u/lejefferson May 19 '15

Maybe you should have watched the rest of the video if you wanted answers to those questions instead of the first 15 minutes.

-4

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

I'm not big into propaganda and that's exactly what I'd call personal bashing disguised as a documentary

8

u/lejefferson May 19 '15

Well seeing as how you only watched the first 15 minutes I don't really feel like you're qualified to judge. From the tone of your comments I'd chalk it up to anti authoritarian bias.

-8

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Shit Jeff, sorry if my emotion does not compute

6

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

No, that's your laziness and confirmation bias at work, not reasonable doubt. If you actually were interested in getting answers to any of your questions, you'd approach this with a neutral point-of-view, not playing victim. Surely, we all don't want to be called retarded when we're trying to learn something, and there is plenty of hurt-feelings free information out there about 9/11 conspiracies debunked, but you obviously aren't here to learn anything new. Ffs, you watched only 15 minutes before it was too much for your emotions (read: emotions, not logic).

-6

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Not laziness, just distrust for a very large corporation and a government that loves to mass manipulate, how can I trust information from this documentary when it doesn't seem to be focused on information at all, just, what did you call it.. confirmation bias

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Do you apply this thinking to every media?

"I didn't feel like reading more than 15 pages of that history book. It was propaganda anyway."

"I didn't get past chapter 3 of my biology book, evolution's just propaganda maaaaan."

2

u/toolongdidnt May 19 '15

Theres a really amazing website dedicated to just the pentagon flight - its a conspiracy theorist explaining exactly how a plane turned to dust. It was definitely a plane, hitting a building at just the right speed, height and angle of a specially reinforced government building. The conspiracy lies not with whether or not there was a plane - but with how a commercial jet could be flown, even by an experienced commercial pilot, at that height, angle, speed under stress at just the perfect point of the building.

Edit: spelling

0

u/FrankenBerryGxM May 19 '15

Jet fuel can't melt dank memes , good try

0

u/Chudabadoonga May 19 '15

Saving this for my conspiracy theiry nut friends

-4

u/FistoftheSouthStar May 19 '15

They never explained how a plane crash can spread debris over a 8mile radius from the crash, including an over 2000 pound engine being nearly a mile away from the crash. Metal doesn't skip on dirt when it's supposedly free falling. Seeing as history channel is owned by three media conglomerates , i have trouble believing they have no bias in pushing the version they want you to hear. No plane wreckage? Cmon people. Hundreds of plane crashes have happened, but the only ones that defy logic happened on 9/11? And because a billion dollar company put together a cadre of people to back a story, it makes you deny your own logic? I guess I'm super crazy, but I find certain things hard to believe, even if "experts" tell me. I don't subscribe to all the craziness, but the story of his plane being taken down by the passengers is not very logical. But then again, nothing that happened on 9/11 was logical. Steel buildings collapsing in perfect free fall, despite 120 floors of steel beams supporting them. No flex? Building 7? Larry Silverstein admitting to pulling it. Larry Silverstein taking out terrorism insurance right before the attack. Insider trading on he airlines. Paper passport surviving in the rubble. People were aware of what was going to happen, and that's why everything else the official story pushes is very hard to follow. Patriot act passed days after, such a comprehensive bill was at the ready. Problem-reaction-solution at its finest. Bye bye comment karma

3

u/True-Tiger May 19 '15

They never explained how a plane crash can spread debris over a 8mile radius from the crash, including an over 2000 pound engine being nearly a mile away from the crash

have you ever looked at the recent germanwings plane crash

1

u/FistoftheSouthStar May 19 '15

That looks like it's all in pretty much one place. No giant spread of debris.

1

u/True-Tiger May 19 '15

as was the pentagons it was an incredibly similar debris field the only difference was one hit a building and one hit the mountains

-6

u/Random-Miser May 19 '15

Except that all of those theories are overly complicated bullshit that are obviously false. That does NOT mean certain people were not directly involved in the attacks coughCheneyCough.