Society & Culture2 mins ago
the 911 conspiracy false?.....change your mind.
31 Answers
the 911 conspiracy ......
what do people think of it?
#military planes crashed into the towers
#check out the underside of the second plane
#fire apparently melted the steel
#explosives used in the towers
#no plane wreckage at the pentagon
#no plane wreckage in shanksville pennsylvania
what do people think ?
what do people think of it?
#military planes crashed into the towers
#check out the underside of the second plane
#fire apparently melted the steel
#explosives used in the towers
#no plane wreckage at the pentagon
#no plane wreckage in shanksville pennsylvania
what do people think ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by pianoman81. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
dave1969 - loose change is a very thought provoking one- it was the first one i saw- and one that made me think about 911 in an entirely different light-
if you have time check out
www.question911.com
there are loads of videos (including loose change) available for free download and they all bring different points and questions to light-
if loose change made you think- definitly check the site out.
if you have time check out
www.question911.com
there are loads of videos (including loose change) available for free download and they all bring different points and questions to light-
if loose change made you think- definitly check the site out.
walso mcfroog-
conspiracy rubbish with mundane explanations ?
so explain to me,
why was there molten steel dripping out of wtc tower 2?
why were the bomb sniffing dogs removed from wtc 2 weeks before 911 ?
why did the buildings collapse at freefall speed?
why were numerous explosions heard, seen & recorded prior to wtc collapses?
where was any wreckage at the entagon- and at the most secure building in the us- why were only 5 grainy still shots of flight 77 supposedly crashing into it -
the gas station and the sheridan hotel opposite the pentagon would have captured the plane going into the building and this would refute any ideas of a missile or a drone plane going in instead
no plane wreckage from flight 93 in shanksville
why did building 7 collapse?
what were the maintenance workers doing in the wtc weeks before 911 and why was the building completely evacuated whenever they were in there ?
where are the black box recorders - supposedly destroyed in the fires- when the hijackers passports were recovered intact ?
answer some of these questions waldo and il give you some more.....
conspiracy rubbish with mundane explanations ?
so explain to me,
why was there molten steel dripping out of wtc tower 2?
why were the bomb sniffing dogs removed from wtc 2 weeks before 911 ?
why did the buildings collapse at freefall speed?
why were numerous explosions heard, seen & recorded prior to wtc collapses?
where was any wreckage at the entagon- and at the most secure building in the us- why were only 5 grainy still shots of flight 77 supposedly crashing into it -
the gas station and the sheridan hotel opposite the pentagon would have captured the plane going into the building and this would refute any ideas of a missile or a drone plane going in instead
no plane wreckage from flight 93 in shanksville
why did building 7 collapse?
what were the maintenance workers doing in the wtc weeks before 911 and why was the building completely evacuated whenever they were in there ?
where are the black box recorders - supposedly destroyed in the fires- when the hijackers passports were recovered intact ?
answer some of these questions waldo and il give you some more.....
for those of you above suggesting its not possibly a conspiracy seriously need to look a little deeper than what you think you know..,
what did you actually see on 911 ?
you like me probably saw two planes fly into the wtc, the towers collapse, the pentagon in flames and a smoking area of woods in shanksville pennsylvania,
"people only know about you what you tell them "
1962 a document was sent to jfk-
entitled the northwood document-
written by very important people in the government
1 plan is listed below,
a plane was to be launched from a normal us commercial airport with "college students"on vacation- in reality they were cia agents - the plane would fly to a military airport where it would land- a drone plane which had been prepared weeks in advance would take off as the real one was landing- this plane would be flown by remote control until it reached cuban waters ,then a false mayday call would be sent, minutes later the plane would explode by remote controlled detonation.
this would outrage the american public believing a plane of college students had been blown up by cuba therefore public opinuion would soar in favor of a war with cuba
this was approved and signed by many white house officials but jfk turned it down- er what happened to him in 1963?
those of you who think a boeing could not be flown by remote control- in 1985 nasa did fuel research - for this they used a boeing 747 via remote control- they flew it for 8 hours inc many take offs & landings before they crashed it- (all by rc) the video exists and is readily available.
some of the evidence,
rudolph guiliani (ny mayor) stating in a live interview he had prior warning the wtc towers were going to collapse.
george w bush stating he had seen the 1st plane hit the tower before he entered the school in florida on sept 11-
the
what did you actually see on 911 ?
you like me probably saw two planes fly into the wtc, the towers collapse, the pentagon in flames and a smoking area of woods in shanksville pennsylvania,
"people only know about you what you tell them "
1962 a document was sent to jfk-
entitled the northwood document-
written by very important people in the government
1 plan is listed below,
a plane was to be launched from a normal us commercial airport with "college students"on vacation- in reality they were cia agents - the plane would fly to a military airport where it would land- a drone plane which had been prepared weeks in advance would take off as the real one was landing- this plane would be flown by remote control until it reached cuban waters ,then a false mayday call would be sent, minutes later the plane would explode by remote controlled detonation.
this would outrage the american public believing a plane of college students had been blown up by cuba therefore public opinuion would soar in favor of a war with cuba
this was approved and signed by many white house officials but jfk turned it down- er what happened to him in 1963?
those of you who think a boeing could not be flown by remote control- in 1985 nasa did fuel research - for this they used a boeing 747 via remote control- they flew it for 8 hours inc many take offs & landings before they crashed it- (all by rc) the video exists and is readily available.
some of the evidence,
rudolph guiliani (ny mayor) stating in a live interview he had prior warning the wtc towers were going to collapse.
george w bush stating he had seen the 1st plane hit the tower before he entered the school in florida on sept 11-
the
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I'll tell you what, why don't you use the search facility on this site and check out the many times this has already been asked and then been shown to be complete arsewater?
Or perhaps you could ask yourself how likely it is that not one of the many thousands of people necessary for a conspiracy theory of the size you are postulating to be carried off hasn't broken cover?
Or perhaps you could ask yourself how likely it is that not one of the many thousands of people necessary for a conspiracy theory of the size you are postulating to be carried off hasn't broken cover?
waldo- i am aware it has likely been asked many times before- obviously many people think there is something there worth asking.....
new evidence and facts are being uncovered all the time- it is over 5 years since 911 so people are now asking questions and evidence is being found and some serious questions coming out-
you seem to be quick to dismiss it all-without any evidence whatsoever ?
you have bought nothing to the table so why inconveinience yourself posting answers, especially when you have none to give?
in order to have a viewpoint, you need to have seen some evidence from the conspiracy side of the story- if you are just basing what you say on what you have seen on msnbc /cnn /bbc then i suggest you delve deeper
as for the number of people that would need to be involved- who exactly ?
not very many at all.......
some high ups in the us government, a few in the military, and the supposed passengers of the planes- etc- and lets face it the us government have never been the most truthful of people have they ?
one last point- (points are something you have lacked in so far ) is $400 million was spent to investigate the clinton/lewinsky scandal,
whereas only $50million was spent on the 911 investigation- also the 911 investigation took 411 days to begin- due to barriers by the us government.
new evidence and facts are being uncovered all the time- it is over 5 years since 911 so people are now asking questions and evidence is being found and some serious questions coming out-
you seem to be quick to dismiss it all-without any evidence whatsoever ?
you have bought nothing to the table so why inconveinience yourself posting answers, especially when you have none to give?
in order to have a viewpoint, you need to have seen some evidence from the conspiracy side of the story- if you are just basing what you say on what you have seen on msnbc /cnn /bbc then i suggest you delve deeper
as for the number of people that would need to be involved- who exactly ?
not very many at all.......
some high ups in the us government, a few in the military, and the supposed passengers of the planes- etc- and lets face it the us government have never been the most truthful of people have they ?
one last point- (points are something you have lacked in so far ) is $400 million was spent to investigate the clinton/lewinsky scandal,
whereas only $50million was spent on the 911 investigation- also the 911 investigation took 411 days to begin- due to barriers by the us government.
Please stop peddling this horse sh1t, as waldo says all the so called anomolies have been explained many times here and in other places. I'm tired of spelling them out so why don't do a bit of searching yourself instead of beleiveing this conspiracy theory rubbish. Tell you what I'll start you off:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eaga r/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eaga r/Eagar-0112.html
Well dear boy, I suppose the main reasons I don't believe in the conspiracy theory are two fold.
Firstly, I'm not 15 any more, therefore not easily swayed by the incredulous rantings of paranoid numpties.
Secondly, and as I already stated, there is extensive credible evidence to debunk all of the supposed claims you've put forward.
Here's a few. Why not read them and tell me which bits you have a problem with?
Debunking The 9/11 Myths
www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
Debunking 911 Conpiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage
www.debunking911.com/
9/11 conspiracy theories
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
REFUTING THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES
ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm
Journal Of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
www.jod911.com/
MP Michael Meacher's crackpot conspiracy theories
blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/2003/09/22/mpMichaelMeachersCrackpotConspiracyTheories.html
Loose Marbles I: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
www.daylightatheism.org/2006/05/loose-marbles-i.html
Firstly, I'm not 15 any more, therefore not easily swayed by the incredulous rantings of paranoid numpties.
Secondly, and as I already stated, there is extensive credible evidence to debunk all of the supposed claims you've put forward.
Here's a few. Why not read them and tell me which bits you have a problem with?
Debunking The 9/11 Myths
www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
Debunking 911 Conpiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage
www.debunking911.com/
9/11 conspiracy theories
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
REFUTING THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES
ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm
Journal Of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
www.jod911.com/
MP Michael Meacher's crackpot conspiracy theories
blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/2003/09/22/mpMichaelMeachersCrackpotConspiracyTheories.html
Loose Marbles I: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
www.daylightatheism.org/2006/05/loose-marbles-i.html
pianoman81. You can read, hear and see footage regarding 911 being a conspiracy and you will be utterly convinced that it is a conspiracy. You can then also read, see and hear footage regarding 911 which will explain all the conspiracy theories away and you will be utterly convinced that it is not a conspiracy.
However, although I do not believe personally that it was a conspiracy, I am always willing to keep an open mind and your post does raise some good points.
I feel Waldo and Loosehead are convinced that it is not a conspiracy and are not even going to entertain any other way of thinking. 'Right Fighter' is the term. ie, they are right, so no one else can be. (regarding this 911 posting)
However, although I do not believe personally that it was a conspiracy, I am always willing to keep an open mind and your post does raise some good points.
I feel Waldo and Loosehead are convinced that it is not a conspiracy and are not even going to entertain any other way of thinking. 'Right Fighter' is the term. ie, they are right, so no one else can be. (regarding this 911 posting)
Perhaps that's because it's rather a black or white situation? Either the US government was in some shape or form complicit in 9/11, or it wasn't. Just a thought.
I'm no fan of Bush's foreign policy and think he (and Blair etc) has increased the danger of terrorism, illegal war, complete fist-magnet, blah blah blah, but no, I do not believe Bush or the US government were complicit in 9/11, and the evidence overwhelmingly supports *my* position *not* those of conspiracy theorists.
I'm no fan of Bush's foreign policy and think he (and Blair etc) has increased the danger of terrorism, illegal war, complete fist-magnet, blah blah blah, but no, I do not believe Bush or the US government were complicit in 9/11, and the evidence overwhelmingly supports *my* position *not* those of conspiracy theorists.
Not really LeChat, It's just that the smallest amount of digging demonstrates that the theories are on very shakey ground. For every conspiracy theorist point there are very rational explanations so you quickly get to thinking that the conspiracy theorists are making ever more bizzarre claims to hang on to their theories rather than looking at the obvious. I can't speak for Waldo but I have looked at this from the beginning and with my pragmatic head on and studying data from both sides I conclude that it is mostly rubbish. I mean read the link above about the collapse and then read the CT's claim that the building was set up for demolition, I mean please.
Years ago there was some guy that tried to explain how crop circles where a naturall phenomenon and he came up with semi sensible theory, which seemed to hold good for the simple round ones. As they got ever more complex he modified the theory to the extent that it was clearly cobblers. Rather than accept they are man made pranks. This is what the CT's do on 911 and other things, moon landings for example.
So I'm not saying "I'm right" and that I'll not entertain a contrary view, I'm saying that the CT's "evidence" is based on leaps of illogic and supposition, ignores vast swathes of "what happenned to ........?" type questions and is generally hard to countenance.
Years ago there was some guy that tried to explain how crop circles where a naturall phenomenon and he came up with semi sensible theory, which seemed to hold good for the simple round ones. As they got ever more complex he modified the theory to the extent that it was clearly cobblers. Rather than accept they are man made pranks. This is what the CT's do on 911 and other things, moon landings for example.
So I'm not saying "I'm right" and that I'll not entertain a contrary view, I'm saying that the CT's "evidence" is based on leaps of illogic and supposition, ignores vast swathes of "what happenned to ........?" type questions and is generally hard to countenance.
I know! Just fancy. Isn't it terrible how they get the people cited as expert scientific witnesses in the conspiracy theories sites and force them to say it's a load of balony and they've been misquoted or quoted out of context. How do you think they do that? This Popular Mechanics sure are a shady bunch, make no mistake.
And the way it repeats the same debunking found elsewhere. Sickening filth.
Still, it's my own fault. I should have read 'www.WooWooLoony.com', shouldn't I?
And the way it repeats the same debunking found elsewhere. Sickening filth.
Still, it's my own fault. I should have read 'www.WooWooLoony.com', shouldn't I?
Fascinating isn't it that whenever conspiracy theories arise, they never seem to appear in the national media, rather they spring up on faceless internet sites. I wonder if it has anything to do with their utter lack of credibility? Of course, the media are also involved in this comspiracy, and so we add a few thousand more people onto the list of keeping it secret. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the very definition of a crackpot is someone that disbelieves everything that appears in the newws, but believe in everything that they read on the web.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Saturday Punt - 2 November 2024
Other Sports4 mins ago
And As Expected Down Goes The Market
News13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.