I mean some kind of group of conspirators doing some kind of "controlled demolition" not hijackers running planes into buildings and the rubble causing other buildings to collapse. I'm not saying "nothing suspicious happened here, move along" I'm saying that the mainstream focus of the conspiracy is trying to prove that it was some kind of crazy "inside job" that wouldn't be necessary (most buildings collapse when hit by a plane, you don't also need some kind of secret special invisible explosive as well) A lot of the conspiracy mongering is just distraction designed to well, distract people from the actual goings on and how the US used the event.
Ah damn, you're right. It was actually evil wizard George Bush casting a 9th level fireball spell and Dick Cheney a 4th level major image spell to disguise it. My bad.
I just don't know why you're trying so hard on this particular point? This is distraction. The real issue is how the American rich and powerful benefited from this, we don't need to invoke magical hidden explosives that break the laws of physics and quote mine some rich fuck who said something dumb, that's irrelevant and just makes you look like a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist. There is a difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory, and the bourgeoisie want to make sure that those lines are as blurred as possible to obfuscate things as much as possible. Clinging on to conspiracy theories about cruise missiles and hologram planes doesn't make your case stronger, it makes it weaker and less based in reality, and therefore, less accurate. A materialist analysis is what is needed, not jumping to exciting conclusions where the elite sacrificed the buildings to moloch or whatever. We don't need to invoke things like that. A plane crashed into some buildings and the US elite used the tragedy to enrich themselves and expand the surveillance state. That's the stuff we should be focusing on. Because that's the only part that actually matters.
I don't understand why you're acting like this, is this a bit? If so, very well played. I've seen you around here and you're reasonable and intelligent in your responses, so I'm just confused why you're adopting a youtube comments section "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" idea so uncritically, especially since I'm 90% sure we agree on the actual why of the event, so I don't know why you're so fixated on this. Again, unless it's a bit, in which case, I congratulate you on playing me so well.
Just reread your comment...did they blow up other buildings around building 7? (other than the twin towers)
I mean some kind of group of conspirators doing some kind of "controlled demolition" not hijackers running planes into buildings and the rubble causing other buildings to collapse. I'm not saying "nothing suspicious happened here, move along" I'm saying that the mainstream focus of the conspiracy is trying to prove that it was some kind of crazy "inside job" that wouldn't be necessary (most buildings collapse when hit by a plane, you don't also need some kind of secret special invisible explosive as well) A lot of the conspiracy mongering is just distraction designed to well, distract people from the actual goings on and how the US used the event.
can you prove that?
Ah damn, you're right. It was actually evil wizard George Bush casting a 9th level fireball spell and Dick Cheney a 4th level major image spell to disguise it. My bad.
I just don't know why you're trying so hard on this particular point? This is distraction. The real issue is how the American rich and powerful benefited from this, we don't need to invoke magical hidden explosives that break the laws of physics and quote mine some rich fuck who said something dumb, that's irrelevant and just makes you look like a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist. There is a difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory, and the bourgeoisie want to make sure that those lines are as blurred as possible to obfuscate things as much as possible. Clinging on to conspiracy theories about cruise missiles and hologram planes doesn't make your case stronger, it makes it weaker and less based in reality, and therefore, less accurate. A materialist analysis is what is needed, not jumping to exciting conclusions where the elite sacrificed the buildings to moloch or whatever. We don't need to invoke things like that. A plane crashed into some buildings and the US elite used the tragedy to enrich themselves and expand the surveillance state. That's the stuff we should be focusing on. Because that's the only part that actually matters.
okay, so no
I don't understand why you're acting like this, is this a bit? If so, very well played. I've seen you around here and you're reasonable and intelligent in your responses, so I'm just confused why you're adopting a youtube comments section "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" idea so uncritically, especially since I'm 90% sure we agree on the actual why of the event, so I don't know why you're so fixated on this. Again, unless it's a bit, in which case, I congratulate you on playing me so well.