For anyone who is unfamiliar with the 9/11 truth movement

PB Forum :: Social / Political Issues
For anyone who is unfamiliar with the 9/11 truth movement
  • Previous Page
Author Message
flag whitezombie93
Posted: Oct 13, 2009 at 8:36 Quote
1.Basic questions about the official explanation of 9/11

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/9-11BasicQuestions.html


2.Why 9/11 was so profitable and the advantages it has for tyrannical globalisation

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ARTICLE5/index.html

3.Loose change documentary

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&ei=5pzUSuSaNoL62wKe4OW1Cg&q=loose+change&hl=en&client=firefox-a#

AND ADDED BONUS FUN!!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8136133221213939183#docid=6706650514037774000
flag chrisispringles
Posted: Nov 19, 2009 at 14:29 Quote
The 'truthers' movement sickens me. Having watched a documentary on the National Geographic channel about 9/11 and whether the 'truther' movement is any good,I can personally state that I think they are talking a whole lot of steaming Bullshit. Their suggestions are all based on circumstantial evidence and with the number of different and unconnected scenarios that they suggest they are clearly playing 'cover ya ass' about it. For example:

Their main suggestion is that the towers were brought down by controlled demoltion. They then go on to say that a paint-on superthermite that no-one knows about was painted at key points in the structure to ensure that it would collapse. The main problem is that that small an amount of reactant, no matter how top-secret, is still going to run out very quickly and the heat from the thermite reaction would last for such a short time it would do little or no damage to the girder. They also suggest that it could have been done with explosives, but that was obviously not the case because it takes more than a month to prepare a relatively small building to be demolished, a building the size of one of the Twin Towers would have taken months and would have been very obvious.

The flaw they point out with the 'planes hitting the towers' explanation is that a jet fuel fire doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. And they are absolutely correct, but it does burn more than hot enough to weaken it to the point where it will fail when loaded, and the girders where already under an excess of loading because some girders were broken so that the load of the building was spread unevenly and they were having to support the weight of a Boeing 767 along with the excess uneven loading of the building.

The main theory that they sugggest for the pentagon attack is that a cruise missile hit it. They say this because they reckon that an aircraft wouldn't leave a whole roughly the diameter of the fuselage but that it would also have damage from the wings.

Firstly computer modelling shows that the wings and rudder have a negligable effect on the hole because they are incredibly lightweight structures designed to withstand the forces exerted by lift and drag in air, not masonry. Secondly there is no way it could have been a cruise missile because the diameter of the hole was incredibly similar to that of a boeing 757, the type of aircraft that crashed into the pentagon and if it was a cruise missile then the building would have shown explsive damage as in a debris field far outside the perimeter of the building and there would have been a crater not a hole in the building.

If you still take the 'truthers' seriously, read this as one of their scenarios:

The planes that crashed into the towers and the pentagon were decoys which switched with the real aircraft over New York and Washington respectively. The real aircraft were then flown to a secret air base where all the passengers were taken off those planes and put on another aircraft which was then crashed into a field. There are a number of flaws with this theory namely the fact that there were, in total 264 people on board the 4 flights and the highest number of people a United Airlines layout 757 can carry is 182 passengers so they physically could not get the people on board. Furthermore United 93 was tracked on radar for the whole time, it did not put down at some secret airbase and the cockpit voice recorder also has evidence of the hijacking when the pilots scream 'MAYDAY!!' at Cleveland centre when the terrorists entered the cockpit.

In all I have absolutely no respect for the 'truthers', in fact I have so little respect for them that I will never refer to them with a capital letter. All they are doing is trying to find some rediculous way in which the U.S. government is responsible for an attack on it's own soil. Unfortunately for the 'truthers' Al'Qaeda claimed responsibility for it and long before the attacks even took place there was a recording of Osama Bin Laden talking about the attacks with Kaled-al-Harbi. Later he released tapes praising terrorism against America. The reason that these conspiracy theories exist is because people like the idea that somehow everything is some super secret cover up and then take hold of tiny discrepancies in something, connect the wrong dots up wrongly and come to their own fantasy conclusion. Terrorism is real, it did happen in New York, Washington and Shanksville that day and it was not the U.S. government, it was the Al'Qaeda, so please stop inslting the thousands of people who died that day in the attacks and accept the truth and stop trying to shift the blame to make your world seem a little cooler.
flag whitezombie93
Posted: Nov 21, 2009 at 6:09 Quote
chrisispringles wrote:
The 'truthers' movement sickens me. Having watched a documentary on the National Geographic channel about 9/11 and whether the 'truther' movement is any good,I can personally state that I think they are talking a whole lot of steaming Bullshit. Their suggestions are all based on circumstantial evidence and with the number of different and unconnected scenarios that they suggest they are clearly playing 'cover ya ass' about it. For example:

Their main suggestion is that the towers were brought down by controlled demoltion. They then go on to say that a paint-on superthermite that no-one knows about was painted at key points in the structure to ensure that it would collapse. The main problem is that that small an amount of reactant, no matter how top-secret, is still going to run out very quickly and the heat from the thermite reaction would last for such a short time it would do little or no damage to the girder. They also suggest that it could have been done with explosives, but that was obviously not the case because it takes more than a month to prepare a relatively small building to be demolished, a building the size of one of the Twin Towers would have taken months and would have been very obvious.

The flaw they point out with the 'planes hitting the towers' explanation is that a jet fuel fire doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. And they are absolutely correct, but it does burn more than hot enough to weaken it to the point where it will fail when loaded, and the girders where already under an excess of loading because some girders were broken so that the load of the building was spread unevenly and they were having to support the weight of a Boeing 767 along with the excess uneven loading of the building.

The main theory that they sugggest for the pentagon attack is that a cruise missile hit it. They say this because they reckon that an aircraft wouldn't leave a whole roughly the diameter of the fuselage but that it would also have damage from the wings.

Firstly computer modelling shows that the wings and rudder have a negligable effect on the hole because they are incredibly lightweight structures designed to withstand the forces exerted by lift and drag in air, not masonry. Secondly there is no way it could have been a cruise missile because the diameter of the hole was incredibly similar to that of a boeing 757, the type of aircraft that crashed into the pentagon and if it was a cruise missile then the building would have shown explsive damage as in a debris field far outside the perimeter of the building and there would have been a crater not a hole in the building.

If you still take the 'truthers' seriously, read this as one of their scenarios:

The planes that crashed into the towers and the pentagon were decoys which switched with the real aircraft over New York and Washington respectively. The real aircraft were then flown to a secret air base where all the passengers were taken off those planes and put on another aircraft which was then crashed into a field. There are a number of flaws with this theory namely the fact that there were, in total 264 people on board the 4 flights and the highest number of people a United Airlines layout 757 can carry is 182 passengers so they physically could not get the people on board. Furthermore United 93 was tracked on radar for the whole time, it did not put down at some secret airbase and the cockpit voice recorder also has evidence of the hijacking when the pilots scream 'MAYDAY!!' at Cleveland centre when the terrorists entered the cockpit.

In all I have absolutely no respect for the 'truthers', in fact I have so little respect for them that I will never refer to them with a capital letter. All they are doing is trying to find some rediculous way in which the U.S. government is responsible for an attack on it's own soil. Unfortunately for the 'truthers' Al'Qaeda claimed responsibility for it and long before the attacks even took place there was a recording of Osama Bin Laden talking about the attacks with Kaled-al-Harbi. Later he released tapes praising terrorism against America. The reason that these conspiracy theories exist is because people like the idea that somehow everything is some super secret cover up and then take hold of tiny discrepancies in something, connect the wrong dots up wrongly and come to their own fantasy conclusion. Terrorism is real, it did happen in New York, Washington and Shanksville that day and it was not the U.S. government, it was the Al'Qaeda, so please stop inslting the thousands of people who died that day in the attacks and accept the truth and stop trying to shift the blame to make your world seem a little cooler.





First of all Let me identify the people that you have no respect for, they are the first response teams that went in and saw the lobby completely blown out before any plane had hit. The first response team are heroes and most if not all that were in the towers disagree with the official explanation for the events on the day from one degree to another depending on their circumstances. I can tell you have done little research on the subject as no one can knowinlgy be this ignorant all though unfortunatly its all too common.

First off another little telling point that you clearly not done any research other than catching a tv show related to the subject shows how much you have researched the mountain evidence against the oficial story. A goverment regulated, censored and approved television program is not a credible source so unless you list all your sources for your info other than a tv show i'm not going to retaliate to your old arguments which have been proved wrong over and over beofore. Frankly, your arguments are old and have already been proved wrong by experts in the relative field, you have nothing new to retaliate too. Do your own research into these points as you will clearly benefit from it. Let me just say this though:

every independant engineering society who have looked into 9/11 disagree with the official explenation

every avaition expert looking into 9/11 has proved that there were no commercial airliners used on 9/11

the compnay that produced the steel stated that it could withstand temperatures well beyond that at which jet fuel burns at and the entire structure was desgined to withstand the impact of airliners as well as just about every natural disaster.

If the official story checks out and everyone lives happily ever after and all the nasty evil terrorist go away then why is there over 30 minutes of air traffic control comminication which the independant investigsators were never aloud to look at at only goverment sponsored ones? Same with cctv footage from the pentagon aswell as surrounding buidlings wich supposdly show the phantom plane hitting the pentagon THEN WHY NOT SHOW IT AND DISPROVE US ALL!!? there are countless other materials that have been withdrawn from the public view and cannot be obtained under the freedom of information act wihch is practicially non-existant now anyway.

PLEASE DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE OLD AND ARE EASILY INVESTIGATED PLEASE LOOK INTO IT AS IM SURE YOU WOULD BENEFIT (hopefully it will make you less ignorant)
flag ezekiel
Posted: Nov 21, 2009 at 8:56 Quote
Here's the thing I don't get about the "truth movement". The government is never going to admit to it (assuming they did do it) so what do all these "mountains of evidence against their story" add up to, nothing.

At best it's going to prove that the government is corrupt which makes about as much sense as setting out to prove the sky is blue simply because everybody and their dog already knows it.

In conclusion I would like to read one valid reason why disproving the story that the government provided will change anything.
flag whitezombie93
Posted: Nov 21, 2009 at 9:32 Quote
ezekiel wrote:
Here's the thing I don't get about the "truth movement". The government is never going to admit to it (assuming they did do it) so what do all these "mountains of evidence against their story" add up to, nothing.

At best it's going to prove that the government is corrupt which makes about as much sense as setting out to prove the sky is blue simply because everybody and their dog already knows it.

In conclusion I would like to read one valid reason why disproving the story that the government provided will change anything.

okay, would care to watch this movie and get back to me

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5464625623984168940&ei=TCMIS7rHCtTF-Aa_sq2RDg&q=1984&hl=en&client=firefox-a#

srsly, im not kidding. name me an aspect of oppresion or deception in the movie and anyone of them is already in place in society to a lesser extent or is rapidly developing to it
flag MarkASX
Posted: Nov 22, 2009 at 8:02 Quote
whitezombie93 wrote:
chrisispringles wrote:
The 'truthers' movement sickens me. Having watched a documentary on the National Geographic channel about 9/11 and whether the 'truther' movement is any good,I can personally state that I think they are talking a whole lot of steaming Bullshit. Their suggestions are all based on circumstantial evidence and with the number of different and unconnected scenarios that they suggest they are clearly playing 'cover ya ass' about it. For example:

Their main suggestion is that the towers were brought down by controlled demoltion. They then go on to say that a paint-on superthermite that no-one knows about was painted at key points in the structure to ensure that it would collapse. The main problem is that that small an amount of reactant, no matter how top-secret, is still going to run out very quickly and the heat from the thermite reaction would last for such a short time it would do little or no damage to the girder. They also suggest that it could have been done with explosives, but that was obviously not the case because it takes more than a month to prepare a relatively small building to be demolished, a building the size of one of the Twin Towers would have taken months and would have been very obvious.

The flaw they point out with the 'planes hitting the towers' explanation is that a jet fuel fire doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. And they are absolutely correct, but it does burn more than hot enough to weaken it to the point where it will fail when loaded, and the girders where already under an excess of loading because some girders were broken so that the load of the building was spread unevenly and they were having to support the weight of a Boeing 767 along with the excess uneven loading of the building.

The main theory that they sugggest for the pentagon attack is that a cruise missile hit it. They say this because they reckon that an aircraft wouldn't leave a whole roughly the diameter of the fuselage but that it would also have damage from the wings.

Firstly computer modelling shows that the wings and rudder have a negligable effect on the hole because they are incredibly lightweight structures designed to withstand the forces exerted by lift and drag in air, not masonry. Secondly there is no way it could have been a cruise missile because the diameter of the hole was incredibly similar to that of a boeing 757, the type of aircraft that crashed into the pentagon and if it was a cruise missile then the building would have shown explsive damage as in a debris field far outside the perimeter of the building and there would have been a crater not a hole in the building.

If you still take the 'truthers' seriously, read this as one of their scenarios:

The planes that crashed into the towers and the pentagon were decoys which switched with the real aircraft over New York and Washington respectively. The real aircraft were then flown to a secret air base where all the passengers were taken off those planes and put on another aircraft which was then crashed into a field. There are a number of flaws with this theory namely the fact that there were, in total 264 people on board the 4 flights and the highest number of people a United Airlines layout 757 can carry is 182 passengers so they physically could not get the people on board. Furthermore United 93 was tracked on radar for the whole time, it did not put down at some secret airbase and the cockpit voice recorder also has evidence of the hijacking when the pilots scream 'MAYDAY!!' at Cleveland centre when the terrorists entered the cockpit.

In all I have absolutely no respect for the 'truthers', in fact I have so little respect for them that I will never refer to them with a capital letter. All they are doing is trying to find some rediculous way in which the U.S. government is responsible for an attack on it's own soil. Unfortunately for the 'truthers' Al'Qaeda claimed responsibility for it and long before the attacks even took place there was a recording of Osama Bin Laden talking about the attacks with Kaled-al-Harbi. Later he released tapes praising terrorism against America. The reason that these conspiracy theories exist is because people like the idea that somehow everything is some super secret cover up and then take hold of tiny discrepancies in something, connect the wrong dots up wrongly and come to their own fantasy conclusion. Terrorism is real, it did happen in New York, Washington and Shanksville that day and it was not the U.S. government, it was the Al'Qaeda, so please stop inslting the thousands of people who died that day in the attacks and accept the truth and stop trying to shift the blame to make your world seem a little cooler.





First of all Let me identify the people that you have no respect for, they are the first response teams that went in and saw the lobby completely blown out before any plane had hit. The first response team are heroes and most if not all that were in the towers disagree with the official explanation for the events on the day from one degree to another depending on their circumstances. I can tell you have done little research on the subject as no one can knowinlgy be this ignorant all though unfortunatly its all too common.

First off another little telling point that you clearly not done any research other than catching a tv show related to the subject shows how much you have researched the mountain evidence against the oficial story. A goverment regulated, censored and approved television program is not a credible source so unless you list all your sources for your info other than a tv show i'm not going to retaliate to your old arguments which have been proved wrong over and over beofore. Frankly, your arguments are old and have already been proved wrong by experts in the relative field, you have nothing new to retaliate too. Do your own research into these points as you will clearly benefit from it. Let me just say this though:

every independant engineering society who have looked into 9/11 disagree with the official explenation

every avaition expert looking into 9/11 has proved that there were no commercial airliners used on 9/11

the compnay that produced the steel stated that it could withstand temperatures well beyond that at which jet fuel burns at and the entire structure was desgined to withstand the impact of airliners as well as just about every natural disaster.

If the official story checks out and everyone lives happily ever after and all the nasty evil terrorist go away then why is there over 30 minutes of air traffic control comminication which the independant investigsators were never aloud to look at at only goverment sponsored ones? Same with cctv footage from the pentagon aswell as surrounding buidlings wich supposdly show the phantom plane hitting the pentagon THEN WHY NOT SHOW IT AND DISPROVE US ALL!!? there are countless other materials that have been withdrawn from the public view and cannot be obtained under the freedom of information act wihch is practicially non-existant now anyway.

PLEASE DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE OLD AND ARE EASILY INVESTIGATED PLEASE LOOK INTO IT AS IM SURE YOU WOULD BENEFIT (hopefully it will make you less ignorant)

LOL. Stop drinking the HaterAid bro.
flag chrisispringles
Posted: Nov 22, 2009 at 10:08 Quote
Having read a selection of your threads on other conspiracy theories it has become quite clear to me that you show no understanding of the situations or what the theories actually suggest, you cannot form a coherent arguement without huge dependence on someone else's work. I, on the other hand, understand full well what I am saying as I have a very strong interest and understanding of Aviation and matters surrounding it and am able to produce a coherent arguement in my own words with my own interpretation and understanding of the matter.

Firstly I have no idea who your supposed 'experts' on aviation are but I am pretty damn sure they are not the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board), which is an INDEPENDANT organization who independant from the U.S. government, their sole purpose is to make travel safer. The NTSB found working flight data recorders and cockpit voice recordrs from United 93 (the plane that crashed in Shanksville), American 11 (the first plane to hit the Towers) and United 175 (the second plane to hit the Towers). The flight data recorder was also recovered from American 77 but the cockpit voice recorder was too badly damaged to be recovered. All the flight data recorders recorded the full length of the four flights so whatever hit the Towers and Shanksville definetely had cockpits and complex avionics systems. American 77 was captured on a security camera in the Pentagon car park and was definetly a Boeing 757-200. Now that we have established that there WERE 4 aircraft crashed that day: a United airlines Boeing 767-200, an American Airline Boeing 767-200, an American Airline boeing 757-200 and a United Airlines Boeing 757-200 all of which have been positively identified as being at the crash site.

Secondly the company that produced the steel did say that the steel could withstand the temperature that jet fuel burns at and that it could survive something like a plane hitting it but they never said that the structure could do this with many critical girders sheared or bent by the force of the impact whilst heated enough to lose 10 percent of the girder's strength. Basic engineering dictates that when a structure loses support somewhere then the force has to go elsewhere, it cannot just disappear. Because critical load bearing girders failed the weight of the building spread, unevenly, around the building to other lower-load bearing girders which, as well as having to support the extra weight of a Boeing 767 and being 10 percent weaker than normal due to the heat, were now being asked to support way more than they were designed to. Then these girders started to bow, pulling the sides of the building concavely inwards. That meant that all the load bearing girders on the outside of the building lost all tensile strength and gave way, taking the building down with it. So far conspiracy theorists have not come up with a plausible scenario to explain the collapse because none of them involve anything hitting them from the sky yet live national television caught United 175 hitting the 2nd Tower and an artist caught American 11 hitting the first tower on her webcam by accident:

http://www.takegreatpictures.com/content/images/panorama_9_11_david_friend.jpg

There's what the webcam saw...

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/brisbaneimc/planeanalysis.jpg

and theres a close-up off the jet.

Now if there is any doubt over the images of the first plane there can be absolutely no doubt about this image, which CLEARLY shows a United Airlines Boeing 767 just about to hit the Twin Towers:

http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/flight-175-just-before-impacting-the-south-tower.jpg

You can even see the United Airlines Logo on the tail.

And here is the security camera video of American 77 hitting the Pentagon:

http://www.starfiretor.com/911AT/PENTAGONimpact_AAflt77.jpg

This is not a clear picture but by a process of elimination it is possible to identify it as a commercial jet. Firstly it has a large tailfin, so it is not a missile, secondly it is moving so it is not a building or an imperfection on the camera lense and thirdly it had been tracked all the way from taking off at Boston Logan (now Liberty) International all the way to impact, so it had to be an aircraft with a take off slot from Boston, thirdly it's transponder (a device which transmits information about an aircraft like its altitude, heading, airspeed, airline code, flight number and squawk code) was transmitting the whole time and was identifying itself as American Airlines flight 77. Fourthly whatever hit there was a Boeing 757 because it left parts of Boeing 757 in the wreckage. More evidence proving that it is not a missile is that it punched a hole in the side of the Pentagon whereas if it was a missile it wouldn't have punched a hole it would have created an enormous crater, which it didn't. Also the missile would have to have been the diameter of a 757 Fuselage and no low-flying cruise missile is that large, so it would have had to be a ballistic missile, but a ballistic missile doesn't fly at low altitudes, it rockets up into the outer atmosphere, runs out of fuel and falls near vertically onto the target so the hole would have been in the roof no the wall and most of the Pentagon would have been instantly pulverised by the force.

Unfortunately there are no videos or images of United 93 slamming into the field outside Shanksville but it was seen by a local resident from their window who promptly reported it to the police as a jet crash. It was easily identified because there were human remains at the crash site and there is no way there could have been remains from people checked in to the flight in a field 20 minutes flight from Washington D.C. Secondly both it's Cockpit voice recorders and Flight data recorders were recovered from the crash site, so it had to be a large jet with a cockpit for the voices to be recorded in and complex enough avionics to provide detailed flight data.

Now that we have the Towers and the aircraft cleared up, I would now like to move on to your 'mountain' of evidence. All of it is based on assumptions and swivel-eyed theories. These are not evidence, evidence is solidly backed up, tangible and hard to dispute. The conspiracy theories rely entirely on quotations ripped right out of context, assumptions, eyewitness testimonies from traumatised witnesses and wrong interpretations of a select few images which can be countered with different camera angles, notably United 175. All the conspiracy theories rely on these assumptions and quotations taken out of context all of which can be very simply countered whereas the official story is based on all of the evidence: entire quotations put into context, chemical analysis, millions of dollars worth of extensive research and testing, hundreds of highly trained, highly qualified independant professionals, multiple Independant organizations, physical evidence from all the crash sites, radar tracking of the flights, data from the flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders, recordings of all communications with Air traffic control and recordings of phone calls made from the hijacked planes. Which is more reliable, the arguements based on assumptions or the explanation based on years of work by real professionals?

The weakest link in the conspiracy theories is actually conspiracy theorists. Independant psycho-analysists tend to show that conspiracy theorists often have paranoia or schizophrenia, denial and mean-world syndrom. They also often believe that serios events have serious reasons. They also like to be reassured by their theories because even if they are macabre they at least mean that human destiny isn't random but is firmly controlled. They also search for a meaning in what has happened instead of looking at what actually happened. They are by no means a reliable source because even if new evidence which thoroughly destroys their theory surfaces, they will continue to believe it because they are in denial and are paranoid about the real events. The reason that conspiracy theories spread is because they are normally far cooler than the real events, one 9/11 conspiracy theory argues that 9/11 wasn't committed by humans but but a group of shape-shifting, alien reptiles who control everything that happens on earth, I think everybody would agree that it is alot cooler than terrorists crashing the planes and would probably make a damn good film, but it is also obvious to anybody that it is a load of steaming bullshit. It's the same with the government theory because it is exciting in a Spooks/James Bond/Dale Brown kind of way and that is why the theory has propagated.

I know that you are unable to understand this because of your clinical denial where your concious mind basically refuses to accept anything related to an official story but in the name of all those who died that day, please stop placing the blame on innocent heads, the only people who benefit from it are the terrorists because, by believing in these theories, you are allowing them to get away with the attacks blameless. The overwhelming evidence points to Islamic terrorists to anyone with a modicum of sense so please quit peddling your pathetic crap, there is no conspiracy, 9/11 was real and you personally are insulting the memories of the thousands who died that day. Show some respect and leave it, the 'truth movement' will never amount to anything, just like every other conspiracy theory.
flag MarkASX
Posted: Nov 22, 2009 at 10:47 Quote
chrisispringles wrote:

I know that you are unable to understand this because of your clinical denial where your concious mind basically refuses to accept anything related to an official story but in the name of all those who died that day,please stop placing the blame on innocent heads, the only people who benefit from it are the terrorists because, by believing in these theories, you are allowing them to get away with the attacks blameless.The overwhelming evidence points to Islamic terrorists to anyone with a modicum of sense so please quit peddling your pathetic crap, there is no conspiracy, 9/11 was real and you personally are insulting the memories of the thousands who died that day. Show some respect and leave it, the 'truth movement' will never amount to anything, just like every other conspiracy theory.

Salute Thank you sir!
flag chrisispringles
Posted: Nov 22, 2009 at 11:07 Quote
MarkASX wrote:
chrisispringles wrote:

I know that you are unable to understand this because of your clinical denial where your concious mind basically refuses to accept anything related to an official story but in the name of all those who died that day,please stop placing the blame on innocent heads, the only people who benefit from it are the terrorists because, by believing in these theories, you are allowing them to get away with the attacks blameless.The overwhelming evidence points to Islamic terrorists to anyone with a modicum of sense so please quit peddling your pathetic crap, there is no conspiracy, 9/11 was real and you personally are insulting the memories of the thousands who died that day. Show some respect and leave it, the 'truth movement' will never amount to anything, just like every other conspiracy theory.

Salute Thank you sir!

No problem mate! it's good to see someone else standing up for the values of modern soceity in this thread too Salute
flag MarkASX
Posted: Nov 22, 2009 at 11:33 Quote
Yeah man it's ridiculous to read about these crazy "conspiracy" theroies, essepecilly when it hits so close to home. All I can do is laugh at these people! They aren't even worth the time or effort of me typing a valid rebuttal. All they get is a big LOL!
flag whitezombie93
Posted: Nov 23, 2009 at 7:27 Quote
chrisispringles wrote:
Having read a selection of your threads on other conspiracy theories it has become quite clear to me that you show no understanding of the situations or what the theories actually suggest, you cannot form a coherent arguement without huge dependence on someone else's work. I, on the other hand, understand full well what I am saying as I have a very strong interest and understanding of Aviation and matters surrounding it and am able to produce a coherent arguement in my own words with my own interpretation and understanding of the matter.

Firstly I have no idea who your supposed 'experts' on aviation are but I am pretty damn sure they are not the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board), which is an INDEPENDANT organization who independant from the U.S. government, their sole purpose is to make travel safer. The NTSB found working flight data recorders and cockpit voice recordrs from United 93 (the plane that crashed in Shanksville), American 11 (the first plane to hit the Towers) and United 175 (the second plane to hit the Towers). The flight data recorder was also recovered from American 77 but the cockpit voice recorder was too badly damaged to be recovered. All the flight data recorders recorded the full length of the four flights so whatever hit the Towers and Shanksville definetely had cockpits and complex avionics systems. American 77 was captured on a security camera in the Pentagon car park and was definetly a Boeing 757-200. Now that we have established that there WERE 4 aircraft crashed that day: a United airlines Boeing 767-200, an American Airline Boeing 767-200, an American Airline boeing 757-200 and a United Airlines Boeing 757-200 all of which have been positively identified as being at the crash site.

Secondly the company that produced the steel did say that the steel could withstand the temperature that jet fuel burns at and that it could survive something like a plane hitting it but they never said that the structure could do this with many critical girders sheared or bent by the force of the impact whilst heated enough to lose 10 percent of the girder's strength. Basic engineering dictates that when a structure loses support somewhere then the force has to go elsewhere, it cannot just disappear. Because critical load bearing girders failed the weight of the building spread, unevenly, around the building to other lower-load bearing girders which, as well as having to support the extra weight of a Boeing 767 and being 10 percent weaker than normal due to the heat, were now being asked to support way more than they were designed to. Then these girders started to bow, pulling the sides of the building concavely inwards. That meant that all the load bearing girders on the outside of the building lost all tensile strength and gave way, taking the building down with it. So far conspiracy theorists have not come up with a plausible scenario to explain the collapse because none of them involve anything hitting them from the sky yet live national television caught United 175 hitting the 2nd Tower and an artist caught American 11 hitting the first tower on her webcam by accident:

http://www.takegreatpictures.com/content/images/panorama_9_11_david_friend.jpg

There's what the webcam saw...

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/brisbaneimc/planeanalysis.jpg

and theres a close-up off the jet.

Now if there is any doubt over the images of the first plane there can be absolutely no doubt about this image, which CLEARLY shows a United Airlines Boeing 767 just about to hit the Twin Towers:

http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/flight-175-just-before-impacting-the-south-tower.jpg

You can even see the United Airlines Logo on the tail.

And here is the security camera video of American 77 hitting the Pentagon:

http://www.starfiretor.com/911AT/PENTAGONimpact_AAflt77.jpg

This is not a clear picture but by a process of elimination it is possible to identify it as a commercial jet. Firstly it has a large tailfin, so it is not a missile, secondly it is moving so it is not a building or an imperfection on the camera lense and thirdly it had been tracked all the way from taking off at Boston Logan (now Liberty) International all the way to impact, so it had to be an aircraft with a take off slot from Boston, thirdly it's transponder (a device which transmits information about an aircraft like its altitude, heading, airspeed, airline code, flight number and squawk code) was transmitting the whole time and was identifying itself as American Airlines flight 77. Fourthly whatever hit there was a Boeing 757 because it left parts of Boeing 757 in the wreckage. More evidence proving that it is not a missile is that it punched a hole in the side of the Pentagon whereas if it was a missile it wouldn't have punched a hole it would have created an enormous crater, which it didn't. Also the missile would have to have been the diameter of a 757 Fuselage and no low-flying cruise missile is that large, so it would have had to be a ballistic missile, but a ballistic missile doesn't fly at low altitudes, it rockets up into the outer atmosphere, runs out of fuel and falls near vertically onto the target so the hole would have been in the roof no the wall and most of the Pentagon would have been instantly pulverised by the force.

Unfortunately there are no videos or images of United 93 slamming into the field outside Shanksville but it was seen by a local resident from their window who promptly reported it to the police as a jet crash. It was easily identified because there were human remains at the crash site and there is no way there could have been remains from people checked in to the flight in a field 20 minutes flight from Washington D.C. Secondly both it's Cockpit voice recorders and Flight data recorders were recovered from the crash site, so it had to be a large jet with a cockpit for the voices to be recorded in and complex enough avionics to provide detailed flight data.

Now that we have the Towers and the aircraft cleared up, I would now like to move on to your 'mountain' of evidence. All of it is based on assumptions and swivel-eyed theories. These are not evidence, evidence is solidly backed up, tangible and hard to dispute. The conspiracy theories rely entirely on quotations ripped right out of context, assumptions, eyewitness testimonies from traumatised witnesses and wrong interpretations of a select few images which can be countered with different camera angles, notably United 175. All the conspiracy theories rely on these assumptions and quotations taken out of context all of which can be very simply countered whereas the official story is based on all of the evidence: entire quotations put into context, chemical analysis, millions of dollars worth of extensive research and testing, hundreds of highly trained, highly qualified independant professionals, multiple Independant organizations, physical evidence from all the crash sites, radar tracking of the flights, data from the flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders, recordings of all communications with Air traffic control and recordings of phone calls made from the hijacked planes. Which is more reliable, the arguements based on assumptions or the explanation based on years of work by real professionals?

The weakest link in the conspiracy theories is actually conspiracy theorists. Independant psycho-analysists tend to show that conspiracy theorists often have paranoia or schizophrenia, denial and mean-world syndrom. They also often believe that serios events have serious reasons. They also like to be reassured by their theories because even if they are macabre they at least mean that human destiny isn't random but is firmly controlled. They also search for a meaning in what has happened instead of looking at what actually happened. They are by no means a reliable source because even if new evidence which thoroughly destroys their theory surfaces, they will continue to believe it because they are in denial and are paranoid about the real events. The reason that conspiracy theories spread is because they are normally far cooler than the real events, one 9/11 conspiracy theory argues that 9/11 wasn't committed by humans but but a group of shape-shifting, alien reptiles who control everything that happens on earth, I think everybody would agree that it is alot cooler than terrorists crashing the planes and would probably make a damn good film, but it is also obvious to anybody that it is a load of steaming bullshit. It's the same with the government theory because it is exciting in a Spooks/James Bond/Dale Brown kind of way and that is why the theory has propagated.

I know that you are unable to understand this because of your clinical denial where your concious mind basically refuses to accept anything related to an official story but in the name of all those who died that day, please stop placing the blame on innocent heads, the only people who benefit from it are the terrorists because, by believing in these theories, you are allowing them to get away with the attacks blameless. The overwhelming evidence points to Islamic terrorists to anyone with a modicum of sense so please quit peddling your pathetic crap, there is no conspiracy, 9/11 was real and you personally are insulting the memories of the thousands who died that day. Show some respect and leave it, the 'truth movement' will never amount to anything, just like every other conspiracy theory.




1.sorry no, i do understand the geo-political reasons and world globalisation agendas in play and if i didnt i wouldn't be so bold as to enter a debate with some one who is an expert on the subject

2.You make it seem as though i plagairise 'someone else's work' im sorry but how would you like me to form a basis of opinion? And since forming an opinion on another's 'work' is such a terrible thing then why do continue to perpetuate the msm's 'work'?

3. avaition isn't the only thing we are debating here and im not going to challenge you on it on my opinion, however i will challenge you on it with the testimonies of american airlines pilots and other avation experts on the matter

4. http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/ this is a site that is run and populated by avaition experts, im not entirely sure who the pilots in loose change are but if you were to watch im sure youl find out.

5. this NTSB must not be aware then of the
flag MarkASX
Posted: Nov 23, 2009 at 7:40 Quote
Once again....LOL... give it up man 9/11 was some real Sh!t
flag whitezombie93
Posted: Nov 23, 2009 at 9:21 Quote
chrisispringles wrote:
Having read a selection of your threads on other conspiracy theories it has become quite clear to me that you show no understanding of the situations or what the theories actually suggest, you cannot form a coherent arguement without huge dependence on someone else's work. I, on the other hand, understand full well what I am saying as I have a very strong interest and understanding of Aviation and matters surrounding it and am able to produce a coherent arguement in my own words with my own interpretation and understanding of the matter.

Firstly I have no idea who your supposed 'experts' on aviation are but I am pretty damn sure they are not the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board), which is an INDEPENDANT organization who independant from the U.S. government, their sole purpose is to make travel safer. The NTSB found working flight data recorders and cockpit voice recordrs from United 93 (the plane that crashed in Shanksville), American 11 (the first plane to hit the Towers) and United 175 (the second plane to hit the Towers). The flight data recorder was also recovered from American 77 but the cockpit voice recorder was too badly damaged to be recovered. All the flight data recorders recorded the full length of the four flights so whatever hit the Towers and Shanksville definetely had cockpits and complex avionics systems. American 77 was captured on a security camera in the Pentagon car park and was definetly a Boeing 757-200. Now that we have established that there WERE 4 aircraft crashed that day: a United airlines Boeing 767-200, an American Airline Boeing 767-200, an American Airline boeing 757-200 and a United Airlines Boeing 757-200 all of which have been positively identified as being at the crash site.

Secondly the company that produced the steel did say that the steel could withstand the temperature that jet fuel burns at and that it could survive something like a plane hitting it but they never said that the structure could do this with many critical girders sheared or bent by the force of the impact whilst heated enough to lose 10 percent of the girder's strength. Basic engineering dictates that when a structure loses support somewhere then the force has to go elsewhere, it cannot just disappear. Because critical load bearing girders failed the weight of the building spread, unevenly, around the building to other lower-load bearing girders which, as well as having to support the extra weight of a Boeing 767 and being 10 percent weaker than normal due to the heat, were now being asked to support way more than they were designed to. Then these girders started to bow, pulling the sides of the building concavely inwards. That meant that all the load bearing girders on the outside of the building lost all tensile strength and gave way, taking the building down with it. So far conspiracy theorists have not come up with a plausible scenario to explain the collapse because none of them involve anything hitting them from the sky yet live national television caught United 175 hitting the 2nd Tower and an artist caught American 11 hitting the first tower on her webcam by accident:

http://www.takegreatpictures.com/content/images/panorama_9_11_david_friend.jpg

There's what the webcam saw...

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/brisbaneimc/planeanalysis.jpg

and theres a close-up off the jet.

Now if there is any doubt over the images of the first plane there can be absolutely no doubt about this image, which CLEARLY shows a United Airlines Boeing 767 just about to hit the Twin Towers:

http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/flight-175-just-before-impacting-the-south-tower.jpg

You can even see the United Airlines Logo on the tail.

And here is the security camera video of American 77 hitting the Pentagon:

http://www.starfiretor.com/911AT/PENTAGONimpact_AAflt77.jpg

This is not a clear picture but by a process of elimination it is possible to identify it as a commercial jet. Firstly it has a large tailfin, so it is not a missile, secondly it is moving so it is not a building or an imperfection on the camera lense and thirdly it had been tracked all the way from taking off at Boston Logan (now Liberty) International all the way to impact, so it had to be an aircraft with a take off slot from Boston, thirdly it's transponder (a device which transmits information about an aircraft like its altitude, heading, airspeed, airline code, flight number and squawk code) was transmitting the whole time and was identifying itself as American Airlines flight 77. Fourthly whatever hit there was a Boeing 757 because it left parts of Boeing 757 in the wreckage. More evidence proving that it is not a missile is that it punched a hole in the side of the Pentagon whereas if it was a missile it wouldn't have punched a hole it would have created an enormous crater, which it didn't. Also the missile would have to have been the diameter of a 757 Fuselage and no low-flying cruise missile is that large, so it would have had to be a ballistic missile, but a ballistic missile doesn't fly at low altitudes, it rockets up into the outer atmosphere, runs out of fuel and falls near vertically onto the target so the hole would have been in the roof no the wall and most of the Pentagon would have been instantly pulverised by the force.

Unfortunately there are no videos or images of United 93 slamming into the field outside Shanksville but it was seen by a local resident from their window who promptly reported it to the police as a jet crash. It was easily identified because there were human remains at the crash site and there is no way there could have been remains from people checked in to the flight in a field 20 minutes flight from Washington D.C. Secondly both it's Cockpit voice recorders and Flight data recorders were recovered from the crash site, so it had to be a large jet with a cockpit for the voices to be recorded in and complex enough avionics to provide detailed flight data.

Now that we have the Towers and the aircraft cleared up, I would now like to move on to your 'mountain' of evidence. All of it is based on assumptions and swivel-eyed theories. These are not evidence, evidence is solidly backed up, tangible and hard to dispute. The conspiracy theories rely entirely on quotations ripped right out of context, assumptions, eyewitness testimonies from traumatised witnesses and wrong interpretations of a select few images which can be countered with different camera angles, notably United 175. All the conspiracy theories rely on these assumptions and quotations taken out of context all of which can be very simply countered whereas the official story is based on all of the evidence: entire quotations put into context, chemical analysis, millions of dollars worth of extensive research and testing, hundreds of highly trained, highly qualified independant professionals, multiple Independant organizations, physical evidence from all the crash sites, radar tracking of the flights, data from the flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders, recordings of all communications with Air traffic control and recordings of phone calls made from the hijacked planes. Which is more reliable, the arguements based on assumptions or the explanation based on years of work by real professionals?

The weakest link in the conspiracy theories is actually conspiracy theorists. Independant psycho-analysists tend to show that conspiracy theorists often have paranoia or schizophrenia, denial and mean-world syndrom. They also often believe that serios events have serious reasons. They also like to be reassured by their theories because even if they are macabre they at least mean that human destiny isn't random but is firmly controlled. They also search for a meaning in what has happened instead of looking at what actually happened. They are by no means a reliable source because even if new evidence which thoroughly destroys their theory surfaces, they will continue to believe it because they are in denial and are paranoid about the real events. The reason that conspiracy theories spread is because they are normally far cooler than the real events, one 9/11 conspiracy theory argues that 9/11 wasn't committed by humans but but a group of shape-shifting, alien reptiles who control everything that happens on earth, I think everybody would agree that it is alot cooler than terrorists crashing the planes and would probably make a damn good film, but it is also obvious to anybody that it is a load of steaming bullshit. It's the same with the government theory because it is exciting in a Spooks/James Bond/Dale Brown kind of way and that is why the theory has propagated.

I know that you are unable to understand this because of your clinical denial where your concious mind basically refuses to accept anything related to an official story but in the name of all those who died that day, please stop placing the blame on innocent heads, the only people who benefit from it are the terrorists because, by believing in these theories, you are allowing them to get away with the attacks blameless. The overwhelming evidence points to Islamic terrorists to anyone with a modicum of sense so please quit peddling your pathetic crap, there is no conspiracy, 9/11 was real and you personally are insulting the memories of the thousands who died that day. Show some respect and leave it, the 'truth movement' will never amount to anything, just like every other conspiracy theory.

1.sorry no, i do understand the geo-political reasons and world globalisation agendas aswell as the effect on domestic society from international engagment and if i didnt i wouldn't be so bold as to enter a debate with some one who is an expert on the subject

2.You make it seem as though i plagairise 'someone else's work' im sorry but how would you like me to form a basis of opinion? And since forming an opinion on another's 'work' is such a terrible thing then why do continue to perpetuate the msm's 'work'?

3. avaition isn't the only thing we are debating here and im not going to challenge you on it on my opinion, however i will challenge you on it with the testimonies of american airlines pilots and other avation experts on the matter

4. http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/ this is a site that is run and populated by avaition experts, im not entirely sure who the pilots in loose change are but if you were to watch im sure youl find out.

5. NTSB must not be aware then, of the fact that the FAA destroyed records and data of flight information at NORADs request from direct order of dick cheney. Why, aslo did Dick Cheney request that the fbi remove all evidence that would support an alternative explonation including a gas station's cctv camerarecording wich would show the plane hitting the pentagon and therfore all controvosy would be eradicated because of the clear evidence of a PLANE hitting the pentagon? The owner of the gas station said that he had never seen the recording because ethe fbi were there in minutes to take it away.

6. throught the 80's and into the early 90's ibm ran tests and developed software which was capable of remotely flying any land sea or air vehicle. There have even been cases were ibm employees claim to have been sent to remote airfields wich were lined with what they thought were commercial airplanes but on closer inspection turned out to be replicas and that ibm wanted the employess to develop software specific to commercial airplanes relatng to how they performed as to mimic the real thing. However, im still unsure of this theory as-among other things, it is unlikely that such a commerical enterprise would work on such technology.

7. okay i need to just look into the egineering reports on 9/11, but the unusual (becuase thats what it is to most structural egineers) collapse of the towers is attributed to the thermite found on the site. A certain thermite which is only found in dod labs and was used to weaken the structures base, the image shows one of the steel collumns sheared by what can only be thermite
http://www.motorsportsartist.com/911truthiness/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/thermite.jpg

8. i've been all day on this and im very ill so i'l answer your pentagon missle bit with a question ive asked before. If a plane hit the pentagon then why not prove it with the video footage?
oh and btw if it was a missle wich im not saying it is it would be an air to land missle one used by apache or whatever

oh and i resent being called a 'conspiracy theorist' as it is a trigger word wich as been programmed over and over again. im just someone who wants an explention for the death of thousands of people some of whom as you have stated you do not respect wich i find highly insulting

i'd the rest tomprow or sumthin
flag MarkASX
Posted: Nov 23, 2009 at 9:28 Quote
[/Quote]im just someone who wants an explention for the death of thousands of people some of whom as you have stated you do not respect wich i find highly insulting

i'd the rest tomprow or sumthin[/Quote]

The answer is terrorists highjacked 4 planes and crashed 3 of them into buildings and the 4th crashed in a field in PA. Also your the insulting one I had 2 friends that lost there fathers that day and for you to say the US government murdered them is the insult.
flag chrisispringles
Posted: Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30 Quote
Your arguements are incredibly outdated. The FBI released the security camera footage from the gas station AND the pentagon car park AND the Sheraton Hotel years ago and the Pentagon camera shows a plane not a missile. Also if it was a ground attack missile launched from an apache attack helicopter then first of all the security footage would not show and object with a large tailfin and it would also show a distinctive exhaust trail. Finally it could not have been a ground attack missile because the frame rates would be to slow to catch it because they have to fly at around mach 3 to stay airbourne. Mach 3 is in the region of 2500 mph, 5 times faster than what the security camera showed. Also it could not have been a missile at all because the building showed no signs of explosive damage. Explosives leave behind tell-tale chemical signatures and compounds, none of which were found at the Pentagon. Explosives also damage structures in a specific way: when something explodes all it's energy is spread out equally in all 3 dimensions so instead of a building with a hole punched through it there would have been debris spread not just in the direction that the aircraft was flying and in the immediate vicinity there would have been debris spread far and wide and the section above where it hit would not have remained standing after impact. Also eyewitnesses at the scene described seeing an American airlines Jet with white blue and maroon stripes.

That Image of a girder that you show is interesting because the way ih has not as we would expect, but conversely it is also not consistent with thermite damage. Firstly thermite is a powder and would not be able to be attached to a vertical column of that size in sufficient quantities to melt through it. Also that column is at ground level but the collapse clearly started high up the buildings. Also the damage to the buildings before they collapsed is 100 percent consistent with being hit by something moving at high speed and that did not explode:

http://debunk911myths.org/topics/Image:Wtc_after_aa11impact_johnfdavis.jpg

In this image of the first tower you can clearly see that the facade in the area of the hole has been forced inwards. This means that whatever caused the damage came from the outside in and did not expode otherwise the facade would be bent outwards.

http://debunk911myths.org/topics/Image:Southtowercollapse-trinity1.jpg

This image shows the facade of the building bowing in. They are bowing in because the floors are bending, pulling the exterior in. This was the fatal body blow to the tower and very soon after it collapsed because the supporting columns in that area were massively over-loaded and weakend considerably and once the outer support structure started to flex it lost all of its tensile strength putting all of the weight of the building on the weakened centre supports, which gave way turning the upper floors of the Tower into essentially an enormous bunker-buster smashing through all of the remaining floors on the way down. The trace amounts of thermite found at the site are also easily explained. All modern aircraft arre made of Aluminium because they need to be strong but light and the girders in the Twin Towers were steel because they needed to be made of a high tensile material. Thermite is made up of a mixture of Iron (III) Oxide and Aluminium which react to give Aluminium Oxide and Iron, both of which were present in the form of surface oxidation on the girders and molten Aluminium from the aircraft. When the molten Aluminium came into contact with the Iron oxide it would have caused a small thermite reaction. The amount of thermite found was no-where near enough to bring down the Twin Towers.

The most obvious agruement against the 'truth' movement is the fact that they blame it on the Bush administration. As I am sure you well know the Bush administration was lackadasical and disorganised. They made an enormous hash of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they handled the recession very poorly and the government was leakier than a colander. Do you seriously believe that a Governement that got voted into power because almost no-one voted and can make such a hash of fully public affairs could manage to pull off something as big as 9/11 without anyone leaking the information and without a hitch? Just remember that the US government is corrupt and all they want is a quick buck, and what could make a quick buck better than selling irefutable information suggesting that the U.S. government committed 9/11? Also to pull 9/11 off would have required enormous amounts of people. They would have needed the co-operation and sworn secrecy of: everyone aboard the four planes, the NYPD, the New York Fire Department, the FAA, the CIA, the FBI, the NTSB, all the eyewitnesses, Boston, New York and Washington ATC, United Airlines, American Airlines, Al'Qaeda the national and international media, most of the governments around the world and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, an idependent body given the task of investigating why the Towers collapsed.

Finally I suggest that you use a different source for your information, 'Loose Change' is the 9/11 equivalent of 'An Inconvenient Truth', even it's producer Dylan Avery admitted on national television that the production was based on assumptions and false information. I quote: 'I would be the first to admit that our film definitely contained errors, it still does contain some dubious claims, and it does come to some conclusions that are not 100% backed up by the facts'. Not only is it based on assumption it also rips quotations way out of context, for example when Wally Miller said 'I stopped being a coroner after 20 minutes because there were no bodies there'. Dylan and Jason leapt on this as proof that there was no commercial jet at the crash site of United 93, but what should be patently obvious is that in reality what he was saying is that the victims bodies had not survived intact because of the force of the crash.
  • Previous Page

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.014874
Mobile Version of Website