• The 911 Conspiracy Theory Explained in 5 Minutes
    331 replies, posted
[QUOTE=danelo;36389913]1. The footage that was shown and the breakdown step by step analysis of David Chandler little course of physics really shows in way that everyone can understand, that the building might have fallen in free fall speed. Now I don't know if the video is perhaps speeded up due to the recording process but then again the NIST probably had to rely on the same video to create their report. [del]2. It is possible for a building to collapse in several ways I am sure, but it's that it fell straight down. Just visually it seems more sane for me to believe a demolition occurred rather than a rare collapse process. [/del] [del]3. They must have been really sneaky![/del] [del]4. I don't know.[/del] [del]5. There are some 'unofficial reports' of people finding explosive residue near the remains. Cannot be proven though. But there are several witness reports that have been recorded by various different reporters that have heard several explosions in a row that would suggest that there might have been a demolition.[/del] [del]6. No clue. Different type of explosives perhaps? Fire resistant wiring![/del][/QUOTE] so essentially all you know is that it fell at freefall speed. the rest is guesswork. and this is supposed to prove that the Bush Administration pulled off the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36389893]ok well how about, instead of going through the massive list of people who have benefited from the events that unfolded after 9/11, you come up with a list of people that are actually linked with Al Qaeda and then filter it down from there. until then your point is worthless and completely hypothetical[/QUOTE] My point is: the whole argument that it was either entire Bush administration or Al Qaeda is retarded on both ends. If anything it should be "someone who actually benefited on the war" vs Al Qaeda. And frankly I think it would be much easier for them if they did have funding. And since the list of people who benefited on the war is long I think it's probable that the person/people who did it are on the list, if it actually was funded by someone who wanted to benefit on the war. Although this is purely hypothetical, since I don't have any information about any of these people being linked with Al Qaeda (how the hell would I even obtain it) it still makes much more sense than Bush administration doing it.
9/11 never actually happened. all the flouride in the water just made us [I]think[/I] that it happened.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36389963]so essentially all you know is that it fell at freefall speed. the rest is guesswork. and this is supposed to prove that the Bush Administration pulled off the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind?[/QUOTE] The only thing I am trying to prove is that there has been lying and that if there is one lie there might be more.
[QUOTE=danelo;36389913]1. The footage that was shown and the breakdown step by step analysis of David Chandler little course of physics really shows in way that everyone can understand, that the building might have fallen in free fall speed. Now I don't know if the video is perhaps speeded up due to the recording process but then again the NIST probably had to rely on the same video to create their report. 2. It is possible for a building to collapse in several ways I am sure, but it's that it fell straight down. Just visually it seems more sane for me to believe a demolition occurred rather than a rare collapse process. 3. They must have been really sneaky! 4. I don't know. 5. There are some 'unofficial reports' of people finding explosive residue near the remains. Cannot be proven though. But there are several witness reports that have been recorded by various different reporters that have heard several explosions in a row that would suggest that there might have been a demolition. 6. No clue. Different type of explosives perhaps? Fire resistant wiring![/QUOTE] The fact remains we have no idea how a steel supported structure would react to uncontrolled fires raging for 7 hours. This is because it has never happened! Back in the 1900's little was understood about how iron and steel becomes incredibly brittle as low temperatures. The titanic sunk, among other reasons because the rivets where brittle and snapped where they should have bent. Ive just finished a module in metallurgy where these two ideas where experimented on and would you believe it? When steel gets hot it turns into butter. Form your own opinions and don't just regurgitated what a voice over the internet tells you.
[QUOTE=danelo;36390028]The only thing I am trying to prove is that there has been lying and that if there is one lie there might be more.[/QUOTE] you haven't proven that there have been any lies, and saying "theres one lie, there might be more.." is useless/meaningless without any other evidence to link to [QUOTE=Silly Sil;36390014]My point is: the whole argument that it was either entire Bush administration or Al Qaeda is retarded on both ends. If anything it should be "someone who actually benefited on the war" vs Al Qaeda. And frankly I think it would be much easier for them if they did have funding. And since the list of people who benefited on the war is long I think it's probable that the person/people who did it are on the list, if it actually was funded by someone who wanted to benefit on the war. Although this is purely hypothetical, since I don't have any information about any of these people being linked with Al Qaeda (how the hell would I even obtain it) it still makes much more sense than Bush administration doing it.[/QUOTE] ok.. i give up then
Fun fact: Osama Bin Laden has been threatening to attack the United States since the beginning of the Clinton Administration. Just thought that little tidbit would put to rest the idea that Bin Laden was invented by the Bush Administration.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36390059]you haven't proven that there have been any lies, and saying "theres one lie, there might be more.." is useless/meaningless without any other evidence to link to [/QUOTE] I have tried to prove it as best as I can. Please watch the video one more time because I don't want to repeat myself anymore. My only question is, if the video that I posted is true. Then why would the NIST falsify their report? Even if it you don't believe it... why would the free fall part of the destruction of a building be of little significance? Shouldn't all areas of this type of investigation be treated with the same amount of attention?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36390059]ok.. i give up then[/QUOTE] Don't you agree with me? That it's much more plausible that [B]if [/B]the terrorists were funded it would be by a smaller group who actually benefited on the war and not by the entire Bush administration who lost on it?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;36390122]Don't you agree with me? That it's much more plausible that [B]if [/B]the terrorists were funded it would be by a smaller group who actually benefited on the war and not by the entire Bush administration who lost on it?[/QUOTE] not really, i'm just not bothering trying to understand your point because there's no real reason to. unless you can say "hey, i bet these dudes funded al qaeda because they had something to gain from it", theorizing that someone else funded them is useless and doesn't help anything
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36390163]not really, i'm just not bothering trying to understand your point because there's no real reason to. unless you can say "hey, i bet these dudes funded al qaeda because they had something to gain from it", theorizing that someone else funded them is useless and doesn't help anything[/QUOTE] So if it was funded it would be by the entire Bush administration. Okay I give up then.
[QUOTE=danelo;36390090]I have tried to prove it as best as I can. Please watch the video one more time because I don't want to repeat myself anymore. My only question is, if the video that I posted is true. Then why would the NIST falsify their report? Even if it you don't believe it... why would the free fall part of the destruction of a building be of little significance? Shouldn't all areas of this type of investigation be treated with the same amount of attention?[/QUOTE] the NIST didn't "falsify" their reports, they just claimed they were full of shit because their computer simulations didn't match up with theirs. most of their claims regarding falsification and "covering up" of data relies on them crying that the official investigation didn't search specifically for bomb residue and things of that nature, which is stupid because it wasn't the NISTs job in the first place. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;36390189]So if it was funded it would be by the entire Bush administration. Okay I give up then.[/QUOTE] uh no it was funded by osama bin laden, an insanely rich saudi who headed the organization
911 Conspiracy Thread V.31 - Where We Barely Grasp What 'Freefall' Speed is or What it Even Means
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36390209]uh no it was funded by osama bin laden, an insanely rich saudi who headed the organization[/QUOTE] Yeah but the only other understandable possibility is that the entire Bush administration pulled off the biggest conspiracy ever (which isn't true). There are no other possibilities. Those are the only two. Which is a fight between utterly retarded possibility and plausible possibility. Which is a pretty easy choice. Why would you confuse yourself with any other possibilities that maybe aren't utterly retarded. Having only these two things to consider is simple.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36386322]1. The military does not run airports 2. It's quite easy to dismiss an off-course plane (See: Pearl Harbor) 3. If they did find out, they wouldn't send in a fighter to shoot down a [I]civilian[/I] aircraft[/QUOTE] 1 The military monitors all air traffic. Ever heard of NORAD? 2 One off course plane, sure. But Two or three planes, dozens of miles off course? I dunno man. 3 Intercept, not shoot down. If deemed a serious enough threat I'm sure they'd shoot it down.
[QUOTE=Jurikuer;36390391]1 The military monitors all air traffic. Ever heard of NORAD? 2 One off course plane, sure. But Two or three planes, dozens of miles off course? I dunno man. 3 Intercept, not shoot down. If deemed a serious enough threat I'm sure they'd shoot it down.[/QUOTE] uh what exactly do you expect them to do in terms of interception, if not shooting them down? and if you did a bit of research you would know they actually did end up deciding to try taking the planes down, by [B]ramming them with jets[/B] because by the time they knew what was going on, they had no time to load weapons systems. when a plane starts going off track and isn't responding, your first response isn't "shoot down the passenger aircraft!", it's "figure out whats happening!", which they did, until the towers had planes in them
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36390426]uh what exactly do you expect them to do in terms of interception, if not shooting them down? and if you did a bit of research you would know they actually did end up deciding to try taking the planes down, by [B]ramming them with jets[/B] because by the time they knew what was going on, they had no time to load weapons systems. when a plane starts going off track and isn't responding, your first response isn't "shoot down the passenger aircraft!", it's "figure out whats happening!", which they did, until the towers had planes in them[/QUOTE] Okay fair enough. But they had plenty of time to figure out there was a huge problem. Especially with passengers calling in a hijacking as it was happening. I'm sorry but I still feel like this was an inside job just so the American Government can have an excuse to have their way with Iraq.
[QUOTE=Jurikuer;36390482]Okay fair enough. But they had plenty of time to figure out there was a huge problem. Especially with passengers calling in a hijacking as it was happening. I'm sorry but I still feel like this was an inside job just so the American Government can have an excuse to have their way with Iraq.[/QUOTE] Yes of course! That's why we invaded afghanistan in 2001!
[QUOTE=Lankist;36389827]It says something about America's ego that they have to come up with these wild, inane conspiracies just so they can deny the fact that some po-dunk, backwater assholes from the Middle East managed to catch us off guard.[/QUOTE] America is the home of conspiracy theories. Seriously, go look up some of the theories people came up with when President Lincoln was shot.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;36390511]America is the home of conspiracy theories. Seriously, go look up some of the theories people came up with when President Lincoln was shot.[/QUOTE] It's obvious Professor Farnsworth did it.
Since Lotus wanted me to point out what is wrong with this video, I decided to do exactly that. Okay, first lets pick apart Corbett Report. James Corbett is not a credible source simply because of how fucking radically fucking crazy he is and inconsistent. He is writing a book called 'Reportage: Essays on the New World Order', it's about a thing that DOES NOT EXIST that he INSISTS exists. Lets take a look at his claims: He thinks Fukushima is a cover-up Oklahoma City Bombing was a cover-up The US is planning to go to war with Syria RFK's assassination was a cover-up. There's a thing called the Auschwitz express (Fuck this douchebag) The FBI and police use military drones to spy on citizens. The US is arming Japan with plutonium. This guy is clearly a fucking reactionary. He just claims EVERY big event is some sort of cover-up. Anyway, on to this piece of shit video: [url]http://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/[/url] [quote]On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with box cutters[/quote] Box cutters can be very imposing as they can kill people. This idea isn't really strange as the Israeli's have gone through it on a nearly yearly basis. Guns are a bad idea to hijack planes with. And box cutters are easy to slip by pre-9/11. [quote]directed by a man on dialysis[/quote] Why the fuck does this matter? It's literally there JUST to discredit their capability of operation and it fucking doesn't. This is subtle trickery. [quote]in a cave fortress halfway around the world[/quote] Again, more trickery. Location doesn't matter; I can call someone in fucking Australia now with my house phone so fuck this guy. [quote]using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world[/quote] There's this thing called cells. They're groups of terrorists who act independent but with a goal. They weren't being directed by Bin Laden every step of the way and even if they were, I don't understand why this is, at all, relevant. Hijacking a plane is pretty simple when it's a one way trip. Matter of fact, Bin Laden barely had anything to do with the planning, that was all left up to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Sure Bin Laden gave the go ahead and aided in it, but he wasn't the architect. Even then, the communications picked up were done in code and it does take the NSA some time to decrypt them. They didn't penetrate a heavily-defended airspace. he's acting like they flew a fucking plane into the airspace. Hijacking a COMMERCIAL AEROPLANE in heavily defended airspace isn't crazy, the Israeli's have exceptionally defended airspace but their planes are still hijacked. No, what's crazy is using military missiles/planes to take down buildings and kill thousands of people and keep EVERYONE involved with it quiet. You never hear people who are 'involved' just those who have seen this or heard of a little bit of that. Quiet whispers. Jesus, 2 sentences in and this shitty video is already looking horrible [quote]overpowering the passengers[/quote] Bystander effect. People are typically too fucking scared to do anything, or they're expecting their safety. I mean, how many times has a suicidal plane hijacking happened? They typically land them and hold them for ransom. I'm not the least bit surprised the passengers were not doing anything. I'm sure many of them contemplated it. Hell, we may not know, but one may have tried to and was killed for it. We don't know. By the way, Flight 93 was where the passengers DID go after the hijackers. [quote]and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft.[/quote] They were military trained - Thirty years before. And they were pilots without physical combat experience. Being military trained doesn't make you instantly impervious to box cutters to your head. [quote]before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.[/quote] It's no where said if a plane goes missing for an hour that you need to prepare to shoot it down. Planes aren't always 100% on radar, they do eventually go out of site, and you attempt to contact them. Of course they start to worry, but do you think they fucking EXPECTED this kind of thing happening? It's not far fetched for control to lose track of planes for small periods of time. Now this is adding to the mix of conspirators, now the air control operators who were on duty are now involved. As are ALL air force members who are trained for this stuff or supposed to respond. [quote]These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers[/quote] Hypocrisy doesn't disprove them. And religion wasn't reasoning for the attacks on the trade centre, it was mostly political. A religious man with strong political beliefs and devotion can be a terrorist and drink alcohol [quote]managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, [/quote] Actually the third building was knocked down by being gutted and on fire for an entire day. [quote]while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine[/quote] This has no source. [quote]Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corkscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon[/quote] This also has no source. Planes land, meaning it's not exactly crazy to fly a plane close to the ground. If you can turn a plane and land a plane and you can fly into a building, it's not that hard. [quote]in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.[/quote] So wait a second Wait wait just a fucking second, if this is the REASON they hit the pentagon, then they planed the attacks literally in a day. Holy shit are you fucking kidding me? Thousands of conspirators, tonnes of money, a massive plan to execute and cover up the largest crime in human history - all in ONE day? And this asshole wants to tell us that the official 9/11 report has holes? And why the fuck does this matter? The pentagon budget analyst office had been unoccupied and had only a few people in the area when the plane hit. And why does crashing a plane invalidate the investigation? I mean, if you can pay off thousands of people to cover this up, can't you pay off the budget analyst office? [quote]Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day[/quote] This is more dishonest wording, all these people are on the chain of information. "The intelligence community for some time has been warning, in a steady drumbeat Brian, that Osama bin Laden has not been heard from frankly since the beginning of the year, the USS Cole incident rather and they've been wondering when and if he will strike again..." This is a quote from the CBS report after the attack. They aren't saying Bin Laden did it, they're saying, from what the intelligence community picked up, that Bin Laden is their current suspect and with good god damn reason. You think Intelligence groups take the day off until something happens? No they are CONSTANTLY watching groups and organisations and studying their patterns. al-Qaeda was a MAJOR threat to the US and was constantly being watched. Bin Laden wasn't this hidden threat that popped out of no where. Since the USS Cole, 1993 WTC bombing and the constant back and fourth between the US and al-Qaeda, yeah, you bet your ass his name would pop up. Why do you think Bin Laden's name came up first? Because al-Qaeda came up first, and who is the leader and prolific figure head? Bin Laden. And why did that group come up first? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing[/url] Because they did it before. Ramzi Yousef was a BLOOD relative to major al-Qaeda leaders. Also to point out many people were expecting he would do something like this, like ORHA member Colonel Paul Hughes, who said the first thing that popped into his mind was that Bin Laden was at fault. Paul Hughes was fucked over in Iraq by the Bush administration and maintained an anti-war stance. [quote]and the evidence literally fell into the FBI’s lap.[/quote] I will admit, this was a very weird, but this is such a small thing, that it doesn't really matter - staged or not. This solidifies something they already knew. [quote]But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.[/quote] Investigation began the second the plane hit the first building. Which is what that intelligence finding above came from. [quote]The investigation was delayed[/quote] By a week. Which isn't really compelling. It takes more than a week to clean up your involvement in something like this. They were just being difficult. [quote]underfunded[/quote] This is TWO YEARS LATER that budget concerns came up. and the budget concerns aren't as dire as you'd think. [quote]set up to fail[/quote] This is more of an expression they both used amongst themselves. Do you know how many investigations are like this? A fuck load. [quote]a conflict of interest[/quote] This doesn't prove or disprove anything. [quote]and a cover up from start to finish.[/quote] Oh yeah, totally fucking unbiased. (From a source that both doesn't work any more and is just opinionated. [quote]It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed.[/quote] I'm not doubting the illegitimacy of torture, as it's wrong, but this is exceptionally contradictory to the idea that the US did 9/11. First of all, what the fuck is KSM doing there if he's innocent? Why did KSM say he only gave false information during 'brutal periods' of torture and not the interrogations where he admitted to being a part of it? And if the entire thing is a cover-up what does him saying he lied matter, lied about what, a false plot? [quote]It failed to mention the existence of WTC7[/quote] Because there is absolutely no reason to? They didn't mention any of the other buildings either. It isn't pivotal to the investigation. He said it himself, they were under budget and with time constraints. Why investigate bullshit? The only reason people want WTC7 investigated is because they're too stupid to understand basic physics. [quote]Able Danger[/quote] There was no need to. It was a security preparation plan. [quote]Ptech[/quote] He sources himself and what you mention about Ptech? It's like sourcing Lockheed Martin in an essay about why the concept of war is bad. Ptech is mostly just another conspiracy tool that really has no merit. [quote]Sibel Edmonds[/quote] Because it was almost a year after they started, maybe. And Sibel Edmonds can't be considered that credible. I'll be honest, they should have, but the fact they didn't doesn't prove the government did 9/11. [quote]Osama Bin Laden[/quote] Fuck it, here's a quote from the commission report: "Al Qaeda and Usama Bin Ladin obtained money from a variety of sources-" There, he's mentioned. [quote]CIA[/quote] Uh, the CIA were sourced a lot in the report. So yeah they were 'mentioned'. Also the source is ridiculous and vague. [quote]the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening.[/quote] The STATE government came out with this as they considered it a coincidence. Now the STATE agency who did this, had a very different style of doing it. The only coincidence is the concept and day. "Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after [b]experiencing a mechanical failure.[/b]" By the way, did I mention it was the STATE government who did this? Not the FEDERAL government. [quote]It was lied to by the Pentagon[/quote] Suspected of, nothing was ever proven. This guy didn't read the sources [quote]the CIA[/quote] Suspected. [quote]the Bush Administration[/quote] Also suspected. Nothing concrete. [quote]and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. [/quote] I really don't see how testifying in secret would prove anything. As if they exposed absolutely EVERYTHING. I mean, there's this thing called lying you can do. I mean you people say they do it all the time, why not now? Oh I know why because it's convenient and sounds ~spooky~ and ~shady~ And honestly, if you just killed 3000 of your own people, lying under oath is the LEAST of your worries. [quote]It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“.[/quote] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/4559804/Terror-suspects-linked-to-al-Qaeda-on-the-run-in-Midlands.html[/url] Oh what do you know they actually found them And for the record it does matter. If you can't find the person who DID it, what's the use finding the people who funded it. This is an investigation, not an intelligence operation, if you want to get to them, you look through the ones who funded it. You want to investigate, you determine your assets. Oh and here's the above quote from the commission: "Al Qaeda and Usama Bin Ladin obtained money from a variety of sources-" [quote]Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions)[/quote] Looking through the cited charge, being unsatisfied in this type of case is not surprising. What is surprising is for being such smoking gun evidence that the government did 9/11, a good portion of those questions are adequate or satisfactory [quote]and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job)[/quote] This kinda makes no sense. [quote]determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.[/quote] NORAD and FEMA are pretty much the only ones who did this. NRO was something different. Hell, even Bush had no idea NORAD was doing this. So yeah, it is a failure of imagination. There's a difference between threats like bank robbery which is likely and therefore prepared for, and things like using planes as weapons - which is unlikely and unprepared fore albeit someone had thought of it in some facet of the government, which again does not prove anything. [quote]The DIA destroyed 2.5 TB of data on Able Danger, but that’s OK because it probably wasn’t important.[/quote] Uh yeah, it wasn't important. Why is this guy so fixated on AD, it's an exercise. [quote]The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that’s OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping.[/quote] Insider trading literally has nothing to do with this. You see, this guy is now encroaching on territory that pretty much is trying to figure out why 9/11 was staged and he's going in several different directions. I don't agree or know why the records were destroyed (or even if they were) but in hindsight, truly it doesn't matter. Insider trading and Able Danger don't have any bearing on why 9/11 happened. This guy is only mentioning it because it's shady. The government could have destroyed evidence of a senator cheating on his wife and this guy probably would go "If the government didn't do 911 then why did they destroy evidence that senator assfuck cheated on his wife? answer that. checkmate sheppel!" [quote]NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC7′s collapse, but that’s OK because knowing how they made their model of that collapse would “jeopardize public safety“.[/quote] There are literally hundreds of bits of information in detailed accuracy that you can pretty much figure it out yourself if you just did the fucking research. And for the record, it would be against public safety. Telling people in detail how to take down a building is not a good idea. All for the sake of filler and satisfying nutcases. [quote]The FBI has argued that all material related to their investigation of 9/11 should be kept secret from the public, but that’s OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide.[/quote] If Corbett is surprised the FBI is withholding investigation information, then maybe he should start reading up on how the FBI operates. Releasing all your evidence and investigation progress is a stupid idea. [quote]This man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention, and if you say otherwise you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity. Likewise him, him, him, and her. (and her and her and him).[/quote] Barry Jennings said he felt an explosion. He didn't witness it, he didn't have any information that said it happened. He just said he felt/heard it. That is really bad evidence when you're dealing with a massively chaotic situation like 9/11. WTC plaza wasn't exactly a quiet and serene morning. Lots of people heard lots of things, and for good reason - it was LOUD. And the fact these people are now saying Jennings was murdered because of what he knew (7 years after saying it), are assholes. As for the rest, it goes without saying that just simply saying "I saw Bush do it himself" doesn't mean it's fact. You need to prove it. [quote]Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away.[/quote] Uh this isn't really a crazy concept. [quote]Then he was hiding out in Tora Bora but somehow got away.[/quote] We in the business of logic call that "running away" or "Escaping" [quote]Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for 10 years releasing video after video with complete impunity[/quote] How much information can you possibly get about a video? Unless there's some little marker on the video footage that says "Hi I'm here L:XXXX L:XXXX" then it's just bullshit fearmongering. [quote](and getting younger and younger as he did so)[/quote] There is literally zero evidence for this. And if you look at his videos you'd see that's kinda not true. How the hell someone can judge a person getting younger without it being painfully obvious which you'd think they'd see that, is beyond me. May I also point out, a lot of videos weren't released in chronological order: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L06lMsF4LJQ[/url] They were released in bulk. [quote]before finally being found in a daring SEAL team raid which wasn’t recorded on video[/quote] Good god, I wonder why. Maybe it's because it's a fucking special operation, the biggest in American history. One they don't want all over youtube? [quote]in which he didn’t resist or use his wife as a human shield, and in which these crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about those dastardly terrorists on the planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it.[/quote] I won't doubt the raid was a little spotty, I'm sure he was killed out of revenge and it was a messy operation. But none of that proves that 9/11 was a coverup. [quote]Then a couple dozen of that team’s members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.[/quote] Huh, the government sure sucks at covering things up. Oh and actually killing their target: "We don't believe that any of the special operators who were killed were involved in the bin Laden operation," a senior U.S. military official told Fox News." Yeah so they coverupped Bin Laden's killing by not actually removing the people involved. That is incredible work. [quote]This is the story of 9/11, brought to you by the media which told you the hard truths about JFK and incubator babies and mobile production facilities and the rescue of Jessica Lynch.[/quote] This is the story of 9/11, brought to you by Corbett Report, which told you the truth about the NWO and RFK. (Which involved SPACE ALIENS) You know what this guy does? He takes the SMALLEST inconsistency and concept that he finds strange or doesn't make sense in his tiny tiny mind, and treats it as smoking gun evidence that the government did 9/11. [quote]If you have any questions about this story…you are a batshit, paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.[/quote] I'll take batshit, paranoid and tinfoil, the rest is persecution bullshit and this guy is whining that his insane and misguided views are somehow considered weird. What a fucking douchebag. Fuck this guy and fuck you Lotus for exposing this awful excuse of a human being to me. [quote]This has been a public service announcement by: the Friends of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, SEC, MSM, White House, NIST, and the 9/11 Commission. Because Ignorance is Strength.[/quote] This has been a PSA by your friendly neighbourhood anti-conspiracy theorist. Because when you ignore the facts, things seem to fit your paranoid delusions. And all the people who rated "winner" on OP, You all should be REALLY ashamed of yourselves. Do some god damn research. [editline]18th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Jurikuer;36390482]Okay fair enough. But they had plenty of time to figure out there was a huge problem. Especially with passengers calling in a hijacking as it was happening. I'm sorry but I still feel like this was an inside job just so the American Government can have an excuse to have their way with Iraq.[/QUOTE] Got any evidence for that other then "I feel like it is"?
[QUOTE=Jurikuer;36390482]Okay fair enough. But they had plenty of time to figure out there was a huge problem. Especially with passengers calling in a hijacking as it was happening. I'm sorry but I still feel like this was an inside job just so the American Government can have an excuse to have their way with Iraq.[/QUOTE] All of NORADs radar was covering the approaches to US not the interior, thus the military could not reliably track aircraft over CONTUS on such short notice. Wow. Governor Goblin, is that what you spent your Monday doing?
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;36390275]911 Conspiracy Thread V.31 - Where We Barely Grasp What 'Freefall' Speed is or What it Even Means[/QUOTE] 911 Conspiracy Thread V.32 - Bickering Aimlessly In the Wind or - "We like to think we know what we're talking about as we take an entrenched stance about our vague idea of the issue while assaulting others who don't think similarly." The fact that both sides are so dismissal of one another is basically pushing this into tween-tier style debate. It's hilarious. :v:
[QUOTE=Doom14;36390648]911 Conspiracy Thread V.32 - Bickering Aimlessly In the Wind or - "We like to think we know what we're talking about as we take an entrenched stance about our vague idea of the issue while assaulting others who don't think similarly." The fact that both sides are so dismissal of one another is basically pushing this into tween-tier style debate. It's hilarious. :v:[/QUOTE] ill rate you dumb if i dont agree with you man, back off
Just watched the video. If it was a done by the government, why leave all these easily avoidable and massive holes? :v:
I like how it first doubts the imediate connection of the attacks and Osama and then call him the best source for information about the attacks. I like how it doubt's he could stay in contact with widely available technology(especially for a rich mofo like him) and then wonder how sophisticated intelligence systems couldn't find him for years(and it's pretty much clear that some guys in Pakistans government helped Osama).
Fuck, why does the OP have more winner ratings than dumb ratings? I can't believe that Facepunch is full of delusional 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
[QUOTE=danelo;36389913]1. The footage that was shown and the breakdown step by step analysis of David Chandler little course of physics really shows in way that everyone can understand, that the building might have fallen in free fall speed. Now I don't know if the video is perhaps speeded up due to the recording process but then again the NIST probably had to rely on the same video to create their report.[/quote] David Chandler is a chemist who basically said the building fell fast. He didn't show any sort of structural or architectural reasons, only just saying the velocity was fast. He didn't even pin it against other forms of demolition. [quote]2. It is possible for a building to collapse in several ways I am sure, but it's that it fell straight down. Just visually it seems more sane for me to believe a demolition occurred rather than a rare collapse process.[/quote] You saw the video posted before, the top floor fell, taking down the entire innards. WTC7 had only three supports that carried loads between them. One was gutted by debris, the other two were weakened by a day of constant fire all built on a faulty architectural design. When the guts collapsed, there is nothing holding the building shell - and that collapsed too. WTC7 was known as a gradual collapse. Same thing happened to that huge office building in Germany, I forget what it's called. Only reason it didn't collapse was because it had a far better support system and it didn't receive massive damage. but the way it fell was exactly the same. Remember the fires I just mentioned that were burning for most of the day? [img]http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/wtc-nist-lg.jpg[/img] [quote]3. They must have been really sneaky! 4. I don't know.[/quote] Well those are very important questions so get back to reality when you have an answer. [quote]5. There are some 'unofficial reports' of people finding explosive residue near the remains. Cannot be proven though. But there are several witness reports that have been recorded by various different reporters that have heard several explosions in a row that would suggest that there might have been a demolition.[/quote] Unless you can show me where, then I'm calling bullshit. also hearing and feeling explosions isn't evidence, especially in a chaotic situation. It's like saying you heard a gunshot at a fireworks show. [quote]6. No clue. Different type of explosives perhaps? Fire resistant wiring![/quote] Oh good god. [editline]18th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Disotrtion;36390636] Wow. Governor Goblin, is that what you spent your Monday doing?[/QUOTE] Please don't remind me.
so that post by governor goblin basically destroyed this video utterly impressive
-snip- I should read the thread first
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.