The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

meepins

watched the videos .. no plane in sight suprise suprise.

dogbert_the_dog

Solid grounds for a conspiracy theory here... portions of a video released into the public domain by a privately funded self appointed bunch of moral guardians ('non-partisan', of course, what possible reason could there be to doubt their own PR), rebroadcast by television media.
No chance any of these organisations could be peddling horses**t, or have any agenda other than to keep us all honestly informed. Unlike the US government (or any government it would seem) who apparently exist solely for the purpose of lying to their populations.

GospelGroupie

You remind me of that Fr. Ted sketch where they are in the caravan and Ted is trying to explain perspectives to Dougal. You know the scene with the cows?
Anyway, perspectives.... yes. The car was near the camera, the plane was far away. Actually how far? Very. Again, as ReefBreak said, each face of the Pentagon is the size of a hanger, larger even. Talking BIG here. Anyway, the shot of the big Boeing crashing into the Pentagon that you see... well that plane is far away. Hence it looks small.

Understand yet?

billy the squid

For personal abuse towards other users, you have earned a week off reefbreak

tunaman

dogbert_the_dog wrote:

Solid grounds for a conspiracy theory here... portions of a video released into the public domain by a privately funded self appointed bunch of moral guardians ('non-partisan', of course, what possible reason could there be to doubt their own PR), rebroadcast by television media.
No chance any of these organisations could be peddling horses**t, or have any agenda other than to keep us all honestly informed. Unlike the US government (or any government it would seem) who apparently exist solely for the purpose of lying to their populations.

Exactly, it's all just part of the cover-up, which without the media doing their part wouldn't be possible.

Just saw the bloke from judicialwatch on that o reilly lads show claiming his reason for wanting to tapes released was to shut up the conspiracy theorists, and this is now the definitive proof flight 77 hit the pentagon. Then o reilly jumped in with the usual line, well we all know they're nutjobs anyway.

Name calling really is their only defence, which shows just how weak and pathetic their stance is. If they had any credibility they would have been asking some real questions a long time ago.

Everybody should check out this video, at 7:35 there is footage of Senator Mark Dayton asking just a few of these uncomfortable questions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6323427897709690102&q=painful+deception

Is he just another nutjob o reilly?

Some people just can't face the facts.

Manic Moran

tunaman wrote:

Everybody should check out this video, at 7:35 there is footage of Senator Mark Dayton asking just a few of these uncomfortable questions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6323427897709690102&q=painful+deception

Is he just another nutjob o reilly?

Some people just can't face the facts.

Good Lord, that's a 90 minute video. I didn't think it was possible to listen to so much tripe. I'm amazed it was even made. (Have you noticed how it's usually the same narrator on all these informational videos?)

You will note that Senator Dayton is not accusing anyone of a conspiracy to commit 9/11, or of knowledge ahead of time. He is accusing people of perhaps screwing up by the numbers, and then definitely lying about it afterwards, presumably to cover their asses.

Ergo, no, I don't think that O'Reilly's nutjob epithet applies to him, as I don't believe him to be a conspiracy theorist.

NTM

ReefBreak

To all those who think there was no plane involved in the 9/11 explosion: where are all the people that were on that plane? On a desert island somewhere? NO, because they were killed on Sep 11 when their plane went into the Pentagon.

You should all read this: The Truth About 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

"Meyssan never does explain fully what happened to the 64 passengers who died aboard Flight 77, despite the positive forensic identification at the crash site. Media commentator Barbara Olsen was just one of several passengers who made cell phone calls to loved ones reporting that the plane had been hijacked. No doubt the families of the victims would be thrilled to hear that their relatives didn't really perish that day, but are being hidden in a CIA safe house somewhere."

RedPlanet

I think this latest video is more bunk.

1) i don't believe for one minute that those are the only pictures they have of whatever struck the pentagon. Try and get near any US Embassy, you'll be monitored from mulitple angles yet we are to believe the the nerve centre of the US armed forces can only produce sh*tty grainy picutures of one side of the Pentagon? C'mon for christsakes.

2) It took a Freedom of Information order and how many years? To get them to release a blurry photo of a "nose cone"? WTF

3) My guess is that this latest stunt is more to test the mainstream media, not to challenge the general public. I reckon they're releasing this to see who in the media is on side and who isn't.
Just listen to the media, we have the Washington Post with an article titled "Videotapes Dispel Conspiracy", my arse.

Untense

Manic Moran wrote:

You will note that Senator Dayton is not accusing anyone of a conspiracy to commit 9/11, or of knowledge ahead of time. He is accusing people of perhaps screwing up by the numbers, and then definitely lying about it afterwards, presumably to cover their asses.

Of course he is not accusing anyone of conspiracy, he's a Senator. Most Americans get violent if you even suppose their government could have a hand in the incident.

Ergo, no, I don't think that O'Reilly's nutjob epithet applies to him, as I don't believe him to be a conspiracy theorist.

Conspiracy theorists are nutjobs?
ERGO the United States Government are nutjobs, because they started a war based on a Conspiracy Theory.

Or do you still think there are Weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq ? :rolleyes:
Which still begs the question, how and why did they jump from Afghanistan to Iraq ?

I suppose you quietly dismissed it like everyone else. Simple fact is nobody wants to believe something as inconvenient as the fact that the United States government is corrupt and evil.

bonkey

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

NoelRock I'd appreciate it if you didnt refer to me as a "Fecking conspiracy nut". Last time I checked Ireland was a free country, where we have our own opinions,

Should that not then mean he's freely entitled to be of the opinion that you're a fecking conspiracy nut?

It seems that you're saying he's not allowed to have or express his opinion on this matter....whilst saying the reason he's not allowed to do so is because people should be freely allowed to have and express their opinions on whatever matters they choose.

Seems suspiciously like a double-standard.

and if you can prove to me without a shadow of a doubth that what happened on September 11th was all above board and there was no room for a conspiracy theory of any sort then dont put such a title on me.

What would it take?

No, seriously.

I'm curious - how do you set the bar of "prove beyond a shadow of doubt" in this case?

The reason I'm asking is twofold:

1) If you can't set the bar, then what you're basically saying is that you cannot be convinced that the official story is true. Once thats the case, then what you've basically declared is that there is no such thing for you as a standard of proof. You'll believe what you want to believe, and evidence be damned. This, of course, then leads on to questioning the basis on which you reject the official theory and on which you accept any alternates that you may accept.

and

2) If you can set the bar, then I'd ask you subsequently if you apply the same standard of proof to all alternate theories, as well as all allegations that there is a cover-up, or that someone is lying (as opposed to merely being wrong).

Basically, I'm willing to bet that just like your "You can't express an opinion because we should be free to express oru opinions" argument, your response to this second point will also contain a self-contradiction or inconsistency

Inconsistency, of course, is why the US administration is "clearly" lieing in this case, attempting a cover-up, and so forth. So what would your use of the same flaw indicate, of not the same?

jc

bonkey

Untense wrote:

Most Americans get violent if you even suppose their government could have a hand in the incident.

Sure they do.

Simple fact is nobody wants to believe something as inconvenient as the fact that the United States government is corrupt and evil.

Thats neither simple nor a fact.

jc

HelterSkelter

ReefBreak wrote:

I agree he is "proper thick", but I'd say his spelling and grammer is a lot better than yours.

If you have to resort to slagging someone's spelling then you obviously have nothing worthwhile to say.

Louisiana

ive posted this on the other thread too, its a summery of the 90 min video........interesting.
suspecting a cover up doesnt make anyone a "conspiracy nut". if no one asks questions no one gets answers.


http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

Untense

Yea, I don't understand why some people on this forum are so closed minded to ideas.

Here's a video they won't release.

http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

So Glad

ReefBreak wrote:

To all those who think there was no plane involved in the 9/11 explosion: where are all the people that were on that plane? On a desert island somewhere? NO, because they were killed on Sep 11 when their plane went into the Pentagon.

You should all read this: The Truth About 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

That is tripe. A collection of sarcastic brush-offs and no attempt to correct what we are trying to prove. For christ sake it says that "of course planes flew into the WTC, not to mention the phone calls made on the planes" (phone calls that simply COULD NOT have been made. FACT) for christ sake who writes this ****?

civdef

It's the same few people that keep coming back with their "proof" that there's a big conspiracy at work. It doesn't matter when anyone debunks whole chunks of their theories (like the melting steel nonsense), they just change tack for a while, then switch back to the previous theory when they think everyone has forgotten about the inconvenient facts that mnake it look as stupid as it is.

On previous occasions on other threads I've tried my best to provide some facts and science to illustrate how these conspiracies are based on a sound core of ignorance and misunderstanding, but since that seems to have little effect on the die-hard conspiracy nuts, I've decided instead to just point and laugh, and perhaps suggest that mental health professionals might be worth talking to.

growler

Untense wrote:

Yea, I don't understand why some people on this forum are so closed minded to ideas.

Here's a video they won't release.

http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

who isn't releasing this particular video (the one you link to above on the public interweb) ?

I find the "expert" analysis regarding the collapse of the buildings quite funny, the "i've never seen a steel enforced building collpase due to fire" line seems to discount the effect of having a large plane impact on said building, there isn't much precedent for that type of event to the best of my knowledge.

I'm going to need more tinfoil.

RedPlanet

civdef wrote:

It's the same few people that keep coming back with their "proof" that there's a big conspiracy at work. It doesn't matter when anyone debunks whole chunks of their theories (like the melting steel nonsense), they just change tack for a while, then switch back to the previous theory when they think everyone has forgotten about the inconvenient facts that mnake it look as stupid as it is.

On previous occasions on other threads I've tried my best to provide some facts and science to illustrate how these conspiracies are based on a sound core of ignorance and misunderstanding, but since that seems to have little effect on the die-hard conspiracy nuts, I've decided instead to just point and laugh, and perhaps suggest that mental health professionals might be worth talking to.

well, on the other hand some people just are lackeys for government and ms media propaganda. Going around always defending anything the government says or does, never the one to question authority. Pathetic cowardly types says i.

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

(phone calls that simply COULD NOT have been made. FACT) for christ sake who writes this ****?

is right.

http://911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html

So apparently what you refer to as "FACT" is perhaps more correctly described as the **** that you're wondering about the authorship of.

jc

Untense

growler wrote:

who isn't releasing this particular video (the one you link to above on the public interweb) ?

I find the "expert" analysis regarding the collapse of the buildings quite funny, the "i've never seen a steel enforced building collpase due to fire" line seems to discount the effect of having a large plane impact on said building, there isn't much precedent for that type of event to the best of my knowledge.

I'm going to need more tinfoil.

Well maybe you can account as to how Building number 7 (the third, 47 story building that conviently is never shown on the TV) also managed to completely collapse in exactly the same was at the other two buildings. This building did not get struck by a plane.

Do you always find yourself laughing at established and proven experts when you fail to understand?

bonkey

RedPlanet wrote:

well, on the other hand some people just are lackeys for government and ms media propaganda. Going around always defending anything the government says or does, never the one to question authority. Pathetic cowardly types says i.

Indeed.

One need only look back over the Politics forum to see the incessant armies of lackeys blindly supporting the Administration and not once questioning anything they say or do.

Indeed, its a struggle to find anyone on this entire boards system who isn't like that, with the exception of those who lend their support to the 911-is-all-a-cover-up-no-matter-what-you-say "open-minded" types.

My research on this is backed, naturally, by trained professionals who say its IMPOSSIBLE that it could be otherwise, and if you don't believe me you can see for yourself. I can even supply carefully-edited excerpts to back up the TRUTH of my FACTS.

jc

civdef

Do you always find yourself laughing at established and proven experts when you fail to understand?

Which experts are those then? You see it's funny, I work as a fire engineer, read the journals, go to seminars etc etc. WTC gets mentioned a lot. There is very little credence (i.e. zero) given to the conspiracy theories by these professionals (who would include the leading international experts in the various fields).

bonkey

civdef wrote:

Which experts are those then? You see it's funny, I work as a fire engineer, read the journals, go to seminars etc etc. WTC gets mentioned a lot. There is very little credence (i.e. zero) given to the conspiracy theories by these professionals (who would include the leading international experts in the various fields).

Well clearly you're only listening to the established corrupt mainstream experts and not the established credible ones.

It should be a giveaway from the oblique "civil" reference in your username. Clearly you are a three-letter-government-agency shill, and these experts you claim to have listened to are either an official cover story or on the same payroll as yourself.

Hey...I could get the hang of this...its pretty easy.

jc

Untense

civdef wrote:

Which experts are those then? You see it's funny, I work as a fire engineer, read the journals, go to seminars etc etc. WTC gets mentioned a lot. There is very little credence (i.e. zero) given to the conspiracy theories by these professionals (who would include the leading international experts in the various fields).

Happily, can you provide me with any quick links ?

bonkey

Untense wrote:

This building did not get struck by a plane.

Indeed. It got hit by bits of two larger buildings which in turn had gotten hit by a plane each.

Untense

bonkey wrote:

Indeed. It got hit by bits of two larger buildings which in turn had gotten hit by a plane each.

Really?

here's a picture of building number 7 collapsing.

Can you point to where the other two buildings are imposing on it ?
http://911review.org/Wiki/Building7Collapse.shtml

SpitfireIV

bonkey wrote:

Should that not then mean he's freely entitled to be of the opinion that you're a fecking conspiracy nut?

Sure he is, I said I'd 'prefer' if he didnt call me that, you know....a bit of common courtesy.....respecting my opinion too.....not reverting to name calling etc etc....its called manners.

As for the rest of your questions, I feel there is no need to explain myself and be critasied by you, as I seen from previous posts here that you arent willing to listen to the other side of the story but are sticking to your own rigid facts. I have my beliefs, you have yours.

Cheers,

CroppyBoy1798

growler

Untense wrote:

Do you always find yourself laughing at established and proven experts when you fail to understand?

I do quite often find myself laughing at "proven" and "established" "experts" when they are clearly nutjobs. One can find an "expert" to back up any theory you want, ID, Moon Bases, Zionist Conspiracy, God, Lizard Nazis in Antartic ......whatever particular brand of delusion you wish to pursue. I chose to disbelieve them when making an informed judgement based on the evidence of my own eyes, I saw planes hit the towers (albeit on a lizard controlled TV station with a possibly Jewish cameraman) and came to the conclusion that, that impact most probably caused them to fall down. Further reading revealed that I was not alone in making this leap of faith and that it seems the majority of experts also had come to the same conclusion.

civdef

Is it really that hard to believe the following sequence of events?

Big plane hits tall building -> Building burns-> building falls down.

bonkey

Untense wrote:

Really?

Yes. Really.

here's a picture of building number 7 collapsing.

So it is.

Can you point to where the other two buildings are imposing on it ?
http://911review.org/Wiki/Building7Collapse.shtml

Can you point out the south face of the building in that building? The one that was actually facing the two towers? The one thats on the other side of what that photo shows? The one that was obscured by the fires etc. of WTC 1 and 2 after they collapsed? The one that would have been hit by falling debris?

No, I didn't think so.

So lets just look at this. I suggest that falling debris would/could/did hit the building. You show me what is analagous to a shot of someone's back and ask me to show where I can show that they have a sucking chest wound.

Its alright though, you're in good company. Almost everyone who contends the WTC7 was a demolition-job seems to offer the "you can clearly tell from his back that his chest wasn't caved in" line of reasoning in one form or another.

I guess i just can't approach things with an open mind, apparently, which is presumably why I can't "obviously" conclude what I want to from the lack of evidence.