9/11 - the real truth

Raging_Ninja

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I find the pentagon one strange.

The white house is not too far from the Pentagon. It's genuinely about 30 to 60 seconds away on a jet plane.

It sticks out like a sore thumb and has a massive open area in front of it, how it would be visible on a clear day (of which it was).

Why on earth did they go for the Pentagon and not the white house? I know the pentagon is probably strategically more important but The White House would have been bigger. Strange.

They reckon the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was going to target either the White House or the Senate.

This was a coordinated attack, so the planes were all assigned targets which 3 of the 4 managed to strike.

Pac1Man

Pizzagate

storker

Samaris wrote: »

There are patterns, if you'll excuse my going on a wider viewpoint of all of these "contentious" subjects. They're roughly split in two, science-based [evolution, vaccination, climate change, smoking] and non-science/social/political [9/11, Sandy Hook, anything being called a "false flag".

The trouble is that patterns are seen by the viewer, and are not actually proof of anything. Like the guys who looked at Mars through telescopes years ago and saw canals that weren't really there. Or that optical illusion with a grid of grey squares where you see spots at the corners that aren't really there either.

I find that conspiracy theorists set the bar very low for what comprises proof of their pet theory and impossibly high for anything that disagrees with it. I've researched a few of these to my own satisfaction and found that the evidence usually boils down to innuendo, bad/misunderstood science and a lot of 2+2=5, and flying in the face of Occam's Razor.

Could 9/11 have been an inside job? I suppose it could have, but I don't believe it was. If someone actually produces some real proof I'll change my position, but for now I've wasted far too much time reading articles and watching videos that claimed to be proof and turned out to be nothing of the sort.

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose certain facts like the hijackers passports surviving a crash that had the intensity to bring down a skyscraper with slightly charred edges and there being no actual undisputable visual footage of a plane hitting the pentagon despite it being one of the most surveyed buildings in the world gives credence to such theories existing

These are good examples of the kind of innuendo that fans the conspiracy flames (no pun intended). OK, the hijackers passports survived, but that means nothing unless we know how many other people's passports survived, or what other documents, driving licences and personal effects survived, because being on internal flights within the US, not all passengers are likely to have required passports anyway.

The collapse phenomenon has been gone into more than enough, but from my research, there seems to be a lot of disregarding of the Twin Towers' unusual construction.

The lack of footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon is unsprising given that it's not a location where anyone is likely to be filming anything, unlike Manhattan. Note also that the footage of the second pane hitting is much better than the footage of the first, because at that point there were already lots of cameras pointing up.

(Just pointing out that even good questions about an event don't comprise proof of skulduggery. I'm not about to get pulled into a 9/11 debate.)

Paleblood

Dubh Linn wrote: »

I don't understand all these conspiracy theories.

The real truth of 9/11 was, 4 hijacked aircraft were flown into the WTC, Pentagon and a Pennsylvanian field.

That is the truth.

What makes people think different?

Is it just because of the shock of it all?

Could something like it ever happen again?

What are the most common conspiracy theories?

Is there any proof?

The bottom line, they are all UNTRUE.

First off, I don't buy into those theories either.

However you began this thread by saying you don't understand the theories, then you ask is there any proof of them, before eventually arriving at the conclusion that they're untrue.

Can you see what's wrong with that approach?

weldoninhio

Dubh Linn wrote: »

I'm simply asking a question - why are there so many conspiracy theories?

Is there any proof?

If there was proof it wouldn't be a theory.

Raging_Ninja

weldoninhio wrote: »

If there was proof it wouldn't be a theory.

No, it'd be an hypothesis. Theories in the strict scientific meaning actually do have evidence to back then up. Conspiracy theories, don't.

Turtyturd

I'm not familiar with this case op, could you fill me in?

Barry Badrinath

Ive never heard of 9/11 OP can you give me a quick summary and what are the chances of this never happening again?

The_Valeyard

Are you the new Kneemos?

Paleblood

Everyone remembers where they were on the 9th of November.

darkdubh

For an insight into the mind of a conspiracy theorist look no further than this headcase.

sjb25

Dubh Linn wrote: »

I don't understand all these conspiracy theories.

The real truth of 9/11 was, 4 hijacked aircraft were flown into the WTC, Pentagon and a Pennsylvanian field.

That is the truth.

What makes people think different?

Is it just because of the shock of it all?

Could something like it ever happen again?

What are the most common conspiracy theories?

Is there any proof?

The bottom line, they are all UNTRUE.

.

bazz26

Paging Jim Corr.

KungPao

We all know Hitler did it.

It's the only theory that makes sense.

Beyondgone

Odd that the pentagon "plane" hit the accounts department obliterating any paper trail for the 2.3 billion that was "missing" from their accounts..and only that department..

or that wtc 7 contained all the papers pertaining to the Enron fiddle, sadly all lost in the collapse, a result of that plane hitting it.

No..wait...

Nah.. just silly conspiracy theorist nonsense.

Canis Lupus

Beyondgone wrote: »

Odd that the pentagon "plane" hit the accounts department obliterating any paper trail for the 2.3 billion that was "missing" from their accounts..and only that department..

or that wtc 7 contained all the papers pertaining to the Enron fiddle, sadly all lost in the collapse, a result of that plane hitting it.

No..wait...

Nah.. just silly conspiracy theorist nonsense.

endacl

Dubh Linn wrote: »

I'm simply asking a question - why are there so many conspiracy theories?

Lots and lots of really stupid people who don't understand they they are stupid have access to the greatest communication tool in history, and other really stupid people who don't understand that they are stupid join in = conspiracy theories.

kneemos

Dubh Linn wrote: »

I'm simply asking a question - why are there so many conspiracy theories?

Is there any proof?

The interweb has revealed the amount of gullible/unstable folk we have in society.

QED.

Yourself isit

There's plenty of reason to doubt the full official story. That said there's no firm counter narrative.

It's interesting that the term conspiracy theory gets such a bad rap. Conspiracies happen all the time. A good number of wars have historically depended on them.

storker

Yourself isit wrote: »

It's interesting that the term conspiracy theory gets such a bad rap.

I find cock-up theories to be much more compelling.

Joshua J

The complete truth is unknown OP therefore it is down to what you believe happened, or more specifically, what you want to believe happened.

Samaris

Joshua J wrote: »

The complete truth is unknown OP therefore it is down to what you believe happened, or more specifically, what you want to believe happened.

*shudder* While arguably true, this is a view I find a bit alarming. "We'll never know the whole truth, so just make up your own mind and that is your own personal reality, as real as anyone else's". It's just so...abusable.

Joshua J

Samaris wrote: »

*shudder* While arguably true, this is a view I find a bit alarming. "We'll never know the whole truth, so just make up your own mind and that is your own personal reality, as real as anyone else's". It's just so...abusable.

It's either true or it's not.

kneemos

Samaris wrote: »

*shudder* While arguably true, this is a view I find a bit alarming. "We'll never know the whole truth, so just make up your own mind and that is your own personal reality, as real as anyone else's". It's just so...abusable.

That makey up stuff is called fantasy. If I think the Moon is a beach ball no amount of wishing wil make it reality.

Outlaw Pete

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx8-ffiYyzA

Not suggesting than any of the previosuly mentioned CTs have any merit but worth mentioning that it was once a conspiracy theory that the Vietnam "hostile actions" referred to in the above presidential address to the nation on Aug 4th, 1964 (which led to LBJ ordering air strikes on North Vietnam) never actually happened. We now know they never happened.

Back in the early 90's it was still being denied as I remember reading one US air force pilot's autobiography (James Stockdale - who spent seven years in the Hanoi Hilton) after seeing him interviewed (on Oprah or Donohue I think) and in it he claimed that it was pretty much an open secret that the Aug 4th attack never occurred but yet it was still (at that time at least) being referred to as a conspiracy theory.

Stockdale (commander VF-51 (Fighter Squadron 51)), with Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Richard Hastings attacked torpedo boats T-333 and T-336, while Commander R. F. Mohrhardt and Lieutenant Commander C. E. Southwick attacked torpedo boat T-339. The four F-8 pilots reported scoring no hits with their Zuni rockets, but reported hits on all three torpedo boats with their 20mm cannon.

Two nights later, on 4 August 1964, Stockdale was overhead during the second reported attack in the Tonkin Gulf. Unlike the first event, which was an actual sea battle, no Vietnamese forces were, however, believed to have been involved in the second engagement. In the early 1990s, he recounted: " had the best seat in the house to watch that event, and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets—there were no PT boats there.... There was nothing there but black water and American fire power."

The next morning, on 5 August 1964, President Johnson ordered bombing raids on North Vietnamese military targets which he announced were retaliation for the alleged incident of 4 August. When Stockdale was awoken in the early morning and was told he was to lead these attacks he responded: "Retaliation for what?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd6zKqGcaOM

Beyondgone

Canis Lupus wrote: »

No such thing as aliens. Plenty of sneaky humans though.

Cheerful Spring

Dubh Linn wrote: »

I don't understand all these conspiracy theories.

The real truth of 9/11 was, 4 hijacked aircraft were flown into the WTC, Pentagon and a Pennsylvanian field.

That is the truth.

What makes people think different?

Is it just because of the shock of it all?

Could something like it ever happen again?

What are the most common conspiracy theories?

Is there any proof?

The bottom line, they are all UNTRUE.

Evidence of a conspiracy would be found at building 7 and the Pentagon.

The building was not hit by a plane. You even seen video footage, where the building was not on fire or structurally damaged, to cause that collapse.

Pentagon: It's estimated there was 84 to 100 security cameras installed around the structure. Still 16 years later not one of the cameras got a picture or even a glimpse of a plane striking the walls. New York we see planes hitting the two twin towers. Pentagon we got a few seconds video of a blast, no plane.

The plane has long extended wings. When the plane hit the Pentagon those wings would have broken off or caused damage to the walls. We see nothing.

Cheerful Spring

Yourself isit wrote: »

There's plenty of reason to doubt the full official story. That said there's no firm counter narrative.

It's interesting that the term conspiracy theory gets such a bad rap. Conspiracies happen all the time. A good number of wars have historically depended on them.

I would not be surprised if business people are behind 9/11. There was money to be made from having a war ( buying military equipment and supplying the army) even the Oil and infrastructural businesses would benefit from having a war. It's shady stuff war.

Means Of Escape

Dubh Linn wrote: »

Have you not heard of the man being dragged off the United flight?

Anyway, I thought that B767-200's were quite small planes that could cause a lot of damage.

They were just 767s for God's sake.

Family of the 767 in court today in New York in the civil lawsuit against the government .

I'll list a few OP and it should be clear why people have their doubts.

Terrorists passports lying on the street below.
Building 7 (like 50 stories) along with the Twin Towers fell in the controlled demolition manner.
The BBC reporting Building 7 collapsing half an hour before it did. The third skyscraper to ever collapse from fire damage and the BBC predicted it.
The Pentagon plane.
The Pennsylvania plane disappearing into the ground.
War game simulations that morning about planes hitting the Twin Towers.
Bin Laden's plane only one to fly out of America later that day.
The WTC insurance thing.
The drama with the official report.
So much planning and effort but then hit the towers before people get to work.
Operation Northwoods detailed in the 60s a false flag operation including hijacking.
etc.

I don't really care to be honest. But blindly labeling all conspiracy theorists as nuts is far more damaging than people believing something else happened. The last couple of weeks has been normal people being 100% conspiracy theorists regarding chemical weapons in Syria but once the issue is closer to home, doubting the official line is apparently mad.