The 9/11 Conspiracy Thread

FOCLMAO,, and next we will hear from someone that has some info about all the news media gag orders. :D

Information control at it's best, right here at Scifoolems Forums.
 
antisipatience said:
onlinejournal is not a conspiracy "web page"
Click to expand...

Sorry, where have you attributed any information to that source?

if you people had the brains to conduct your own searches instead of being spoonfed the MAINSTREAM Media (i had to re-word Media for one incompetant reader)
Click to expand...

Ah, the usual retort, everyone else is too stupid to see it, and conspiracy nutters are more enlightened. No. Not at all, actually. We're NOT gullible, and don't believe conspiracies without evidence. So far, you've shown nothing, and so far ALL the allegations have been debunked on this thread.

of course, like in electronics, people (like currents) will always choose the path of least resistance
Click to expand...

See, you're wrong here too. If you have a couple of resistors in parallel, current flows through them in inverse proportion to their resistance, it does not all flow through the lowest. I suggest you hit the schoolbooks, and leave the conspiracy web sites alone for a while.


heres links regarding the horrible hurricane disasters.
Click to expand...

Ah, usual conspiracy nutter's tactic, instead of providing evidence for one topic, after making allegations, just change topics! Take th hurricane stuff to another thread, kid, and stick to the topic here. Provide evidence for your claims, and actually cite your sources.
 
Last edited:
if TV was scientifically proven to cause cancer, do you think they would tell you on the News Channel ??

You guys are .... hopeless.
 
Yes I'm sure it would be reported in the news even if not the TV news. I've seens stories about health risks of TV. What about the BBC seeing as it's publically owned. This is irrelevant anyway. We've already seen that there is no evidence and now you haven't shown there to be a motive.
 
antisipatience said:
*a side note* you guys know the hurricanes that hit florida ? "CNN" and other MEdia Outlets claim a low # of people died, like 30 or something. Did you know that the REAL DEATH TOLL is OVER 400 ??? you chumps will swallow whatever Big Brother feeds you like fucking spoonfed babies!!!

all i can say is look for information, and think for your damn selves !
Click to expand...
Actually, the media consistently over-reports hurricane death tolls. Most hurricane deaths aren’t people who are actually killed by the storm, but people who die accidentally during the cleaning up; guys who cut their own leg off with chainsaws, fall off the roof trying to repair shingle damage, get electrocuted by trying to move a tree that fell over a power line, etc. I suppose you could argue that those people were ‘killed by the hurricane,’ but not really in the way that the media usually presents it. Higher body counts are good for news, I guess.

The information on the web page that you linked to is just laughable. It includes such absurd statements as
Just ask any survivor of Andrew what the six-and-a-half-hour siege was like and the answer will always be the same. "We didn't have any prior warning. We heard hurricane Andrew suddenly bearing down on us like a speeding locomotive."
Click to expand...
I live in Florida and have been through many hurricanes - my house is in the path of hurricane Frances as I write this. I remember Andrew quite well, and there were days of warning. Anyone who had over five brain cells took the warnings seriously and evacuated.
 
We already have a thread on this where it belongs, in Pseudoscience.
 
Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. There were hundreds of witnesses, who watched her skim over traffic, clipping off poles, and glanced off the ground at a very shallow angle just in front of the entrance. There is a wealth of evidence and eyewitness accounts for what happened, and the differing interaction between a heavy reinforced-concrete structure (Pentagon) and light steel structure (WTC) is very well understood. The impacts were very different, because the structures impacted were very different.

What has not been examined by the public is the degree of training and proficiency required of the attack pilots. There is no way that the autopilots and navigation systems of these jets could have been programmed to fly the profiles to impact that a great deal of irrefutable evidence shows to have been flown. ("Profile" in this context means a set of airspeed, altitude, g-forces, airframe elasticity, Mach buffet, target closure, and other extremely unique and challenging factors) The pilots at the controls at the 3 target impact sites, 3 for 3, were certainly trained in high-speed jet attack, and that training very likely occured under American instruction, in the Royal Saudi Air Force. Wherever this highly specialized training ocurred, there were certainly many duplicates of official records of training in each country involved.

If you are intrigued by actual conspiracies, then look into why the American public is being denied valuable and pertinent information, regarding exactly how and where these pilots were trained: The skills they so expertly demonstrated are not learned in civilian flight schools, nor are they learned in "terrorist training camps": These pilots learned hands-on how to visually put bombs on target at high speed and low level. They applied this extremely specialized experience 3 for 3, by closing with the target just as in low-level gravity-bomb attack, and then deliberately "fixating" on the target, just as many hapless attack pilots have inadvertently done, which usually results in a perfect bullseye, jet and all.

Do a little more research, Randolpho, and then maybe you can turn your curiocity and scepticism toward something more real and productive.
 
I don’t know but the idea of crashing a plane in level flight does not seem that hard, I would like to see flight simulator tests proving that it would take a experienced pilot to crash a airliner jet into the WTC or the Pentagon. Not until more solid evidence is brought up rather then opinions will this be allowed here.
 
Last edited:
Pangloss said:
We already have a thread on this where it belongs, in Pseudoscience.
Click to expand...

thanks for your opinion, but if it belongs in pseudoscience, can anyone answer in a logical fashion; why was there only a small entry hole (wound) into the building, what happened to the wings & tail that should have been sheared off at impact, why did it seem that a hardened missile hit through 3 of the rings, what happened to all the wreckage & bodies there after the crash?

My theory is that a USAF jet fired 2 missiles at Flight 77, one hit the plane & the other hit the Pentagon.

But we're still left with the problem; what happened to the wreckage?

And why cover-it-up?


BTW, I protest this thread being relegated to "Pseudoscience"
 
"why was there only a small entry hole (wound) into the building, what happened to the wings & tail that should have been sheared off at impact"

The Purdue University link I highlighted as "well understood" above, Randolfo, introduces some of the data. Watch the sequences here and you'll gain a better sense of the physics: Flight 77 was shredded and burned at high speed. This is nothing like the old barnstorming stunts of a slow biplane leaving its wings behind in a slow collision with a barn. The impact was very high-energy, oblique (not a full- wingspan vector) and also a very difficult shot to line up without considerable piloting skill.

The command pilots were largely made out to be bumblers who performed poorly in civilian flight schools, when they were in fact highly-trained military pilots who only needed to perfect their knowledge of 757 cockpit layouts, characteristics, and airline security procedures during their late mission preparations in the USA. I'll be glad to discuss the flying technique aspects more with you, but until you take some time to understand why the impact results were not what many expected (like an approach-speed, open-terrain airline accident debris field), then there's no point.

But if you'll spend a little time with the Purdue study, I think you'll understand better how a 757 can be mostly obliterated and consumed by a 575 mph impact with an array of massive reinforced-concrete pillars, and how, like any high-energy ballistic "entry wound", the dimensions of damage at the point of initial contact is surprisingly small- but not invisible- Flight 77 bounced off the ground in a terrific impact, the wings were flexed upwards somewhat on rebound as she hit the outer wall, and in many photos you can see where the wings knifed through the walls (and were themselves sliced up).
 
Another example that may be helpful to you, Randolfo, would be to take a look at the 737 crashes in Colorado Springs and Pittsburgh. In both cases, very similar in size to the 757 went into the ground at a high rate of speed. The debris fields were *tiny* (the one in Pittsburgh fit into a guy's back yard). ValuJet would be another example of this, in some ways.

In all three cases, the amount of recovered debris was similar to that of UA77, if not less. There's no visible fuselage in any of those three cases. No visible "broken off" tail structure. It's all just "gone".

It's funny how these cases are ignored by the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They don't even try to explain that discrepency. They simply don't tell you about it. You might want to give that some thought.

By the way, accoring to the 9/11 Commission Report, UA 77 was also observed before and during the event by a passing Coast Guard C-130 pilot. His testimony is fully documented and available online.
 
No it is not funny at all, Pangloss.
But the fact remains with those other crashes you mention debris field, it is obvious in any of the Pentagon images there was no debris field what so ever.
 
But the fact remains with those other crashes you mention debris field, it is obvious in any of the Pentagon images there was no debris field what so ever.
Click to expand...

That's not what I see. But more to the point, that's a layman's interpretation of events. The conspiracy sites claim expert analysis, but in fact they're making very amateurish assessments, and thinking you won't notice because they speak authoritatively.

Ask for their credentials. You'll find them wanting.
 
Rando kid, how dare you posted something non anti islamic? I am very pissed. Please get back to your regular duty given to you by saul. :D
 
9/11 a conspiricy?

I wont reprint the whole thing here and instead point to a link:

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=89&contentid=790&page=2

This basically outlines a central and most disgusting theory,i DONT want to believe it even if it was true.

Sorry if this has been posted here or anywhere else before but what are your opinions.

My personal opinion is conspiricy theories are just that,theories,and the idea is to look for holes,the central argument against these theories has always been "if you can look for the holes and spot them then why didnt the conspirer also do so"

Like moon landing being faked,people pointed out obvious things that would have clearly been obvious to the conspirer.
 
I respect that,but which one?

i mean ive looked and this would cover science,world events,politics and free thinking opinion/general.

Like how about the science of mobile/cell phones in planes cos thats worth a mention,the PHYSICS of certain things and politics,this is an all rounder in my opinion mate.
 
Fair enough.

The real conspiracies are actually so blantantly obvious and important but nobody cares about them.

For instance Bush and his business links.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top