Stanley Kubrick Confesses To Faking The Moon Landings

burningmetal · 01-31-2017, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by foreverfan

9/11 "inside job" hysteria is just total bunk?

Yes, my friend, I'm afraid so.

World Trade Center numbers 3 and 5 were also destroyed as a result of falling debris and subsequent fire damage, along with over a dozen other buildings that were either destroyed or damaged.

So, given that all of these buildings were being destroyed, it's not difficult to imagine how a foreign reporter who likely had no idea which buildings are which, could have mistakenly stated the wrong building. How many of us had any clue about any of the other buildings, aside from the twin towers, before that day? Probably not many, because no one really cared. That reporter should have been more careful to make sure she got the right building, but we all know the media wants to report first and fact check later. If they ever fact check at all.

So that is hardly a smoking gun, certainly in my opinion. But the bigger issue I have, is what does the collapse of building 7 prove to anyone? If the twin towers were supposedly blown up (which is equally lacking in facts) and the planes were just flown into the buildings to distract people from "the truth", then why cause building 7 to fall WITHOUT any planes? How is that supposed to help their cause?

I've heard theories about the government wanting to blow it up to destroy evidence of their plot that might have been hidden there... Couldn't they just use a shredder or a burn pile, without blowing up an entire building? It makes no sense.

But there was zero evidence of any explosives found at that site. I have a couple of different sources that can pretty easily explain the collapse of building 7 as well as the twin towers. It really is common sense to me when it comes to the twin towers, but for conspiracy theorists, they want more, and when you show them more they say "that's what they want you to believe", without really considering the probability of what the reports suggest, and putting it to the common sense test.

They ignore it and come up with a different theory, instead. Here's one link, and if you wish to continue the conversation, I'd be happy to go further. World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest

View Poll Results: Do You Believe Stanley Kubrick Confesses To Faking The Moon Landings?
Our Government with ABC, CBS and NBC would never lie about this so I believe everything.	1	25.00%
Our Government with ABC, CBS and ABC faked the whole thing.	2	50.00%
I want the Falcons to win the Superbowl.	1	25.00%
Voters: 4. You may not vote on this poll

01-31-2017, 07:36 AM	#9
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,923 Blog Entries: 3	Re: Stanley Kubrick Confesses To Faking The Moon Landings Originally Posted by foreverfan 9/11 "inside job" hysteria is just total bunk? Yes, my friend, I'm afraid so. World Trade Center numbers 3 and 5 were also destroyed as a result of falling debris and subsequent fire damage, along with over a dozen other buildings that were either destroyed or damaged. So, given that all of these buildings were being destroyed, it's not difficult to imagine how a foreign reporter who likely had no idea which buildings are which, could have mistakenly stated the wrong building. How many of us had any clue about any of the other buildings, aside from the twin towers, before that day? Probably not many, because no one really cared. That reporter should have been more careful to make sure she got the right building, but we all know the media wants to report first and fact check later. If they ever fact check at all. So that is hardly a smoking gun, certainly in my opinion. But the bigger issue I have, is what does the collapse of building 7 prove to anyone? If the twin towers were supposedly blown up (which is equally lacking in facts) and the planes were just flown into the buildings to distract people from "the truth", then why cause building 7 to fall WITHOUT any planes? How is that supposed to help their cause? I've heard theories about the government wanting to blow it up to destroy evidence of their plot that might have been hidden there... Couldn't they just use a shredder or a burn pile, without blowing up an entire building? It makes no sense. But there was zero evidence of any explosives found at that site. I have a couple of different sources that can pretty easily explain the collapse of building 7 as well as the twin towers. It really is common sense to me when it comes to the twin towers, but for conspiracy theorists, they want more, and when you show them more they say "that's what they want you to believe", without really considering the probability of what the reports suggest, and putting it to the common sense test. They ignore it and come up with a different theory, instead. Here's one link, and if you wish to continue the conversation, I'd be happy to go further. World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest
	If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.