9/11

Sasquatch - 10/10/2016 11:05

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

This is from 2008 as well and less than half. The numbers have grown dramatically since then.
Click to expand...

That's just repeating the survey I posted, and a load of others that were earlier.

Again, what question was being asked? Was George Bush involved is very different to who do you think it was. You'd get very different responses to the two.

You made a bold claim, prove it, or admit you were incorrect. We won't think any less of you if it is the latter, in fact it would enhance your reputation.
 
Villan Of The North - 10/10/2016 11:45

It's not a conspiracy persay but I do believe that some elements have been covered up for reasonss of security.

One element that I struggle with is the attack on the Pentagon, there was no aircraft debris and, for all aircraft debris to have "evapourated" the entire plane would have had to have been engulfed in the buiding, which is fine except that there was insufficient width of damage done accordong to the wingspan of the aeroplain that was supposedly used.

My personal theory is that a weapon was used that the US government don't want to admit to, either because it penetrted their defences, perhaps some kind of cruise missile, or perhaps they just didn't want to acknowledge the weapon used as they were the ones that they initially supplied.
Click to expand...

There was loads of Aircraft debris. I remember discussing this with murph, and he posted photos of Aircraft parts. Add to that, the traffic on nearby roads saw the plane coming in, and that would be impossible to fake.
 
Eye witness accounts can easily be fabricated so I won't take that at any more than face value. As for debris, you may be right and if so then my theory is not needed but the reposrts I read and pictures I saw showede a lack of debris. I guess it's just a matter of which reports are correct and where they came from.

 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 10/10/2016 12:32

Sasquatch - 10/10/2016 11:05

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

This is from 2008 as well and less than half. The numbers have grown dramatically since then.
Click to expand...

That's just repeating the survey I posted, and a load of others that were earlier.

Again, what question was being asked? Was George Bush involved is very different to who do you think it was. You'd get very different responses to the two.

You made a bold claim, prove it, or admit you were incorrect. We won't think any less of you if it is the latter, in fact it would enhance your reputation.
Click to expand...

My point is many people question the offcial story and don't know who did it or who is telling the truth. This makes the majority doubt the official story.

Regarding the pentagon I do question why one of the most secure buildings in the world can't produce footage of the plane.
 
Sasquatch - 10/10/2016 12:46


My point is many people question the offcial story and don't know who did it or who is telling the truth. This makes the majority doubt the official story.

Regarding the pentagon I do question why one of the most secure buildings in the world can't produce footage of the plane.
Click to expand...

52% of Americans believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Does that make them right? I wouldn't rely on their judgement on what to feed my cat, never mind these bigger issues.

And again, there are photos out there of plane debris at the Pentagon, assuming you want them to exist, of course.
 
I agree. Even if 99% don't believe it the truth is the truth regardless. I was just making the point that the number is growing rapidly.

Those plane parts could have been placed there. If it was an inside job it would have been planned for years prior. Still no footage of the plane though?
 
I don't wish to be rude here Bob but anyone could go into an aircraft scrapyard and snap those shot and claim that they are some evidence of debris. Where is the tail end of the aiircraft sticking out of the building, or the other, "usual" bebris one sees after an air disaster+. Did the entire fusilage "evapourate", what about the couple of hundred cabin seats? Bagage? It doen't add up for me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just don't think the US government want people to knw that it was either a US supplied weapon that did the damage or that the US miltary head quaters were to easily suseptable to attack from foriegn powers, terrorist or therwise. A hi-jacked aerolane is easier to spin.

 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 10/10/2016 08:09

It's absolutely as it has been explained. I've done some very detailed research on this, and every point put forward claiming it to be a conspiracy is easily debunked.

For me, to be a conspiracy you would be saying that thousands of emergency service workers were complicit, and I just can't see that. They lost too many of their own to remain silent.
Click to expand...

Are you an architect?

I'm not, but seeing it happen unfold live on TV, when the first building collapsed I thought "that's weird" but didn't think much more of it. Of course since then, the manner in which the buildings collapsed demolition style has been one of the main points. What's your view on that? And why did Building 7 collapse despite not being hit? Again, fell like a deck of cards.

I've seen the explanations, they don't convince me. Or a whole bunch of architects and engineers that started their truth campaign. And if your basing any of your opinions on the 9/11 Commission Report, then don't even talk to me.

Also, why would the emergency services need to be complicit?
 
Regarding The Pentagon, I agree with VOTN in what he's just said. Photos don't say anything.

Also, there was numerous CCTV cameras in the surrounding areas, petrol stations etc., that would have caught the plane on camera. Yet all were confiscated. Why not just release some footage of a tape and put the whole thing to bed? What's the big secret? They said it was a plane, so show us the fucking plane!

 
Villan Of The North - 10/10/2016 13:24

I don't wish to be rude here Bob but anyone could go into an aircraft scrapyard and snap those shot and claim that they are some evidence of debris. Where is the tail end of the aiircraft sticking out of the building, or the other, "usual" bebris one sees after an air disaster+. Did the entire fusilage "evapourate", what about the couple of hundred cabin seats? Bagage? It doen't add up for me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just don't think the US government want people to knw that it was either a US supplied weapon that did the damage or that the US miltary head quaters were to easily suseptable to attack from foriegn powers, terrorist or therwise. A hi-jacked aerolane is easier to spin.
Click to expand...

Some of the pictures are cropped from larger, wider images of the whole site. Murph identified many of the parts last time we discussed this. He had some connection to the Aeronautics industry, I can't remember what.

And if we are doubting pictures, why are you relying on them for your evidence? Unless you were there of course, in which case I apologise. Angles could have been used that deliberately don't show the debris, or they could be photoshopped out. In reality, photos from the fences surrounding the Pentagon were too far away to get a clear shot for most cameras.

Really Ian? You expect the tail to be sticking out? Do you know how much momentum would have been in the back end of the Plane? Simulations show the whole plane would end up deep inside the building at the speed it came in.

http://www.purdue.edu/uns/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

"Most of the computer-simulated crashes you see in movies or on TV are not realistic from the point of view of physics,"

 
Stephen Jay Hawkings - 10/10/2016 13:43

Are you an architect?

I'm not, but seeing it happen unfold live on TV, when the first building collapsed I thought "that's weird" but didn't think much more of it. Of course since then, the manner in which the buildings collapsed demolition style has been one of the main points. What's your view on that? And why did Building 7 collapse despite not being hit? Again, fell like a deck of cards.

I've seen the explanations, they don't convince me. Or a whole bunch of architects and engineers that started their truth campaign. And if your basing any of your opinions on the 9/11 Commission Report, then don't even talk to me.

Also, why would the emergency services need to be complicit?
Click to expand...

I am not an architect, but I did read up extensively on this some time back, and read many architectural reports. The simple truth is that nobody has ever tested these types of construction with a plane crashing into them. To use it as evidence, either way, is spurious, because we simply don't know.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology issued their report 2 years after the collapse, and created a complex computer model of how it happened, in their view, so it is entirely possible that it happened as explained.

The 9/11 Commission Report didn't cover Building 7, so I can't quite see the relevance here?

It is inconceivable that those on the ground would not have seen some evidence of the cause, if we take it that it was the Government. Whether explosives, missiles or whatever, they would have seen something.
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 10/10/2016 16:21



Really Ian? You expect the tail to be sticking out? Do you know how much momentum would have been in the back end of the Plane? Simulations show the whole plane would end up deep inside the building at the speed it came in.
Click to expand...

Agreed but if that is the case the wings would have either smashed a bigger hole or been ripped off.......the reality as far as I undersand it is that the wings were not ripped off and as such left as rather large peices of debris and the damage to the building was not wide enough to account for the plane's wingspan.

 
Villan Of The North - 10/10/2016 15:32

HeathfieldRoad1874 - 10/10/2016 16:21



Really Ian? You expect the tail to be sticking out? Do you know how much momentum would have been in the back end of the Plane? Simulations show the whole plane would end up deep inside the building at the speed it came in.
Click to expand...

Agreed but if that is the case the wings would have either smashed a bigger hole or been ripped off.......the reality as far as I undersand it is that the wings were not ripped off and as such left as rather large peices of debris and the damage to the building was not wide enough to account for the plane's wingspan.
Click to expand...

Wings are hollow, full of fuel, so would react differently to other parts of the plane. As I say, the simulation shows that the crash was entirely fitting with a plane hitting the building. I am not enough of an expert to say myself how and why, but the software is open to anyone to have a look, and nobody has come forward yet to say it is wrong.
 
Stephen Jay Hawkings - 10/10/2016 13:43

HeathfieldRoad1874 - 10/10/2016 08:09

It's absolutely as it has been explained. I've done some very detailed research on this, and every point put forward claiming it to be a conspiracy is easily debunked.

For me, to be a conspiracy you would be saying that thousands of emergency service workers were complicit, and I just can't see that. They lost too many of their own to remain silent.
Click to expand...

Are you an architect?

I'm not, but seeing it happen unfold live on TV, when the first building collapsed I thought "that's weird" but didn't think much more of it. Of course since then, the manner in which the buildings collapsed demolition style has been one of the main points. What's your view on that? And why did Building 7 collapse despite not being hit? Again, fell like a deck of cards.

I've seen the explanations, they don't convince me. Or a whole bunch of architects and engineers that started their truth campaign. And if your basing any of your opinions on the 9/11 Commission Report, then don't even talk to me.

Also, why would the emergency services need to be complicit?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't seem much point restating the explanation if you're already aware of them but don't believe them.

mildly curious though why the conspiracy types think the two towers were felled with such 'obvious' controlled explosions - why not make them collapse more 'realistically' ?

Why give the game away so obviously with 7 - why not get some more saudi lads on another plane / car bomb ?
and again why so obvious with the controlled explosion - I mean it's not a very good conspiracy if they can't be arsed to make it look realistic ?
and why knock down 7 - I know there's a CIA office which has all the exact detailed plans of the plot housed right next to the scene of the exploit - but couldn't they have just moved the files or shreaded them like ?

:37:
 
Stephen Jay Hawkings - 10/10/2016 13:55

Regarding The Pentagon, I agree with VOTN in what he's just said. Photos don't say anything.

Also, there was numerous CCTV cameras in the surrounding areas, petrol stations etc., that would have caught the plane on camera. Yet all were confiscated. Why not just release some footage of a tape and put the whole thing to bed? What's the big secret? They said it was a plane, so show us the fucking plane!
Click to expand...

Some of the CCTV has now made it's way onto the internet, if you want to have a search.

Also, the Air Traffic control tapes have been released, and video of a low flying plane was on the BBC just before the crash.

It's all there.
 
But no crash filmed. I'm sure the pentagon wouldn't need a petrol station cctv to confirm it.
 
A I have stated before, my nephew (who is my age as both my brothers were in there 20's when I was born) was caught up in 9/11.

He seen both planes hit. He was just getting off the boat as the first plane hit. He seen it for himself. He seen the 2nd plane hit as he was going into his office near where the World Trading Centre was.

He knows first hand what happened. He was there. He was stuck on the island for 5 days dealing with the aftermath, in his offices as well as all around it.

Thank God he managed to get a call through to the family before the lines crashed where he was.

I will take the word of someone who was in the ''thick of it'' that it is the official line than people dealing in conspiracy theories.

I had a female I know say they had decided to investigate it this year and had decided it was a conspiracy. You should have seen her face when I told her my nephew was caught up in it and I think would know better than her what was what. She shut up very quickly.

No conspiracy theory. The official line is correct
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 10/10/2016 15:29

I am not an architect, but I did read up extensively on this some time back, and read many architectural reports. The simple truth is that nobody has ever tested these types of construction with a plane crashing into them. To use it as evidence, either way, is spurious, because we simply don't know.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology issued their report 2 years after the collapse, and created a complex computer model of how it happened, in their view, so it is entirely possible that it happened as explained.

The 9/11 Commission Report didn't cover Building 7, so I can't quite see the relevance here?

It is inconceivable that those on the ground would not have seen some evidence of the cause, if we take it that it was the Government. Whether explosives, missiles or whatever, they would have seen something.
Click to expand...


Yes, the 9/11 Commission Report didn't cover Building 7, that's my point. Why not? It was it left out of what should have been the biggest investigation ever taken place, yet instead we got nothing but a half-arsed report that was an insult to the families of the deceased. Conducted of course by members appointed by Bush and Congress.

Are these not the same people that lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction, a "conspiracy" which they later had to admit to? They lied on that one. It's official. Why should we believe the official events of 9/11 then?

As for people on the ground, you have seen the interviews with firemen and police who claim they heard explosions on the ground floor well before the building collapsed?

 
kefkat - 10/10/2016 17:02

A I have stated before, my nephew (who is my age as both my brothers were in there 20's when I was born) was caught up in 9/11.

He seen both planes hit. He was just getting off the boat as the first plane hit. He seen it for himself. He seen the 2nd plane hit as he was going into his office near where the World Trading Centre was.

He knows first hand what happened. He was there. He was stuck on the island for 5 days dealing with the aftermath, in his offices as well as all around it.

Thank God he managed to get a call through to the family before the lines crashed where he was.

I will take the word of someone who was in the ''thick of it'' that it is the official line than people dealing in conspiracy theories.

I had a female I know say they had decided to investigate it this year and had decided it was a conspiracy. You should have seen her face when I told her my nephew was caught up in it and I think would know better than her what was what. She shut up very quickly.

No conspiracy theory. The official line is correct
Click to expand...

We can't deny planes went into the twin towers. There are to many eye witnesses. However it can be disputed who organised the attacks and how the buildings fell let alone a tower that didn't get hit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.