Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    On the first frame as it comes into view you can see a grey/white/silver object enter view, then you can see a shadow below the flight path, then an explosion - nothing more, nothing less given the angle of the camera, distance from the collision site, frame rate, resolution, etc.



    If you give someone a bottle of wine and tell them that it's an expensive/good wine they will enjoy it more than if you told them that it was a cheap/poor wine - same bottle of wine, a bit of human intervention, two different outcomes. If you bombard people with conspiracy theories, tell them what they can see/think/hear, etc it is going to influence their thoughts on the matter.

    You cannot prove or disprove the pentagon attacks using that video, you're seeing something which isn't there and there's a strong argument that its an artefact of the media.



    A while back my dog was extremely ill, it was choking and retching (and had been doing so on and off for a couple of hours). It had been eating a hide chew earlier in the day. I was adamant that it was a GI obstruction and laid it on pretty thick with the vet. Turns out it was kennel cough. Why was I wrong? I wasn't a qualified vet and I didn't have any experience of the situation.

    I'm sorry but you've got no real experience of what happened and you're not a professional witness - who are you to say that it doesn't add up or that the professionals have got it all wrong?
    If you can't admit you can see a wing then there is little hope really.

    I don't care if its a conspiracy or not, I did not google 9/11 pentagon conspiracy I googled 9/11 pentagon video and looked for myself.

    Doctors make plenty of mistakes, I know that from my own experiences. I could sue the NHS ******** if I wished for not monitoring my blood levels correctly which I ended up in hospital because of so frankly why should I believe it?

    That is the kind of statement which is why German's followed Hitler, oh he is our leader, what he is doing must be right.

    It was probably a 757 that hit it, frankly it doesn't interest me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DustyM)
    There is one very compelling theory that does not suggest the White House killed it's own but since I read it a few years ago has become more convincing as each new fact slots neatly into place.
    In 2000 Iraq started to deal it's oil in euros. Syria looked likely to follow suit.
    To understand the threat to America you have to understand the financial state of the US. A simplified explanation 'I promise to pay the bearer on demand' means that the govt will exchange your paper money for 'real money'. Theoretically the Gov't must hold bullion stocks to match the number of promissary notes but of course they don't. The reality is the 'notes' stay in circulation and the govt's have a deficit. America has a massive deficit.
    What happens if the billions of dollars circulating in the oil industry were to come home to roost? First sign of the banks having a problem and everyone would take their money out of dollars.
    America supports 100s of countries through trade etc. If it went bust the worldwide effect would be catastrophic. Potentially worse than any disaster we have ever known.
    Who else would be panicked? The Saudis definitely. Who did Bush spend the night with on 10/11?
    Who was flown out of USA when all other planes were grounded? Into what family was Osama Bin Laden born?
    The real question is why did Bush use 9/11 to justify the invasion of Iraq.
    Bush had every reason to go to war. He may well have prevented worldwide disaster but it had nothing to do with 9/11 and terrorism. In fact the connection is so tenuous it's hardly likely Bush would have blown up the towers as a means to that end.
    So you have a motive for war (and a good one) but one that the public would not have supported.
    The Saudis bring an awful lot of money into the US as the biggest arms customer (remind me again what is it Bush's father sells?)
    The article suggested that if...the Saudis had wanted the US to invade Iraq, and if...Bush had said 'not possible' then the Saudi's may have used a more persuasive argument. They certainly had the resources and the connections with the people who did blow up the towers.
    You have to admit it's a good theory and over time it gets consolidated. I read today that people are suing the US govt for preventing them from killing Osama Bin Laden. Do we really believe he could have stayed hidden if the US had wanted to find him?
    Perhaps..He is after all a Saudi prince. His family may have helped. His family may have had influence.
    I'm not saying any of this is true, just that if you want to write this thesis, you need to look at a much wider political spectrum and assume that whatever was done was done by people who felt 100% justified in doing what they did.

    Watch that bit of film where Bush gets the news.
    That's where I start to believe the theory. Suddenly his inexplicable behaviour and body language make sense. He knows... and it's not what we know.

    What do I believe? I believe that conspiracy theories are neccessary. We must question everything and more importantly we must be allowed the freedom to question everything.
    No. All the conspiracy theories haven't been disproved. Half of them haven't been invented yet.
    i think this theory is very interesting, it really does cover all bases and ties up many so to speak loose ends ie the real connection between 9/11 and iraq... and even brings in the place bin laden and saudi.... one thing i have read numerous times is the saudis have always been conflictingg with saddam and iraq from the 60s and even earlier, rumuor has it the saudis offered to help the US in the gulf war, but after initial agreement the US soon backed out due to egotistical reasons and other foreign policy... this gives another motive and reason for initiating the US war with Iraq... i think the reason in popular culture of siimply "oil" never really seemed realistic to me...
    where did you read this theory in the first place
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    If you can't admit you can see a wing then there is little hope really.
    I won't admit that what you think you can see is a wing because frankly you cannot tell - myself and multiple others have told you this.

    "The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk but the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."

    I don't care if its a conspiracy or not, I did not google 9/11 pentagon conspiracy I googled 9/11 pentagon video and looked for myself.
    Undoubtedly though what you've seen in the media, what other people have said, etc has influenced what you think.

    Doctors make plenty of mistakes, I know that from my own experiences. I could sue the NHS ******** if I wished for not monitoring my blood levels correctly which I ended up in hospital because of so frankly why should I believe it?
    Exceptions do not prove the rule.

    Personally I'd trust my life more with a professional than an armchair quarterback.

    That is the kind of statement which is why German's followed Hitler, oh he is our leader, what he is doing must be right.
    *Godwins Law*

    No I said that I am more likely to believe a group of professionals over a group of laymen - that's a bit different to blindly following an extremist individual through the good and the bad.

    Life is anything but simple, it may seem clear cut to you now but you weren't there and you aren't a professional witness.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    I won't admit that what you think you can see is a wing because frankly you cannot tell - myself and multiple others have told you this.

    "The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk but the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."



    Undoubtedly though what you've seen in the media, what other people have said, etc has influenced what you think.



    Exceptions do not prove the rule.

    Personally I'd trust my life more with a professional than an armchair quarterback.



    *Godwins Law*

    No I said that I am more likely to believe a group of professionals over a group of laymen - that's a bit different to blindly following an extremist individual through the good and the bad.

    Life is anything but simple, it may seem clear cut to you now but you weren't there and you aren't a professional witness.
    Took the time to highlight it myself.



    Underside of what can only be a wing is clearly seen.

    What professionals? Except for a discovery documentary which had some images what numerical evidence do you have that a 757 would do so little damage?

    I don't think it was a conspiracy so saying that I am being too simplistic isn't really fair. I just don't think things add up, which is the opposite of simplistic.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Took the time to highlight it myself.



    Underside of what can only be a wing is clearly seen.

    What professionals? Except for a discovery documentary which had some images what numerical evidence do you have that a 757 would do so little damage?

    I don't think it was a conspiracy so saying that I am being too simplistic isn't really fair. I just don't think things add up, which is the opposite of simplistic.
    Relevant video worth watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Took the time to highlight it myself.



    Underside of what can only be a wing is clearly seen.
    What you're pointing to is present both before and after the plane comes into frame - it isn't a wing but part of the background.

    Put it on fullscreen and see for yourself.

    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Except for a discovery documentary which had some images what numerical evidence do you have that a 757 would do so little damage?
    I don't have any evidence because I wasn't there, I wasn't privee to the official investigation and I wasn't a professional witness - nor were you. Who am I or you to decide that a 757 would have done more damage or in fact that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon?

    I just don't think things add up, which is the opposite of simplistic.
    What you're saying doesn't add up.

    If it was all a conspiracy why would those who were behind it make such an amateurish mistake? With such a degree of incompetence surely someone 'in the know' would have spoken out about it? Surely creating more damage would make it wholly more convincing and get greater support of it's cause?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    What you're pointing to is present both before and after the plane comes into frame - it isn't a wing but part of the background.

    Put it on fullscreen and see for yourself.



    I don't have any evidence because I wasn't there, I wasn't privee to the official investigation and I wasn't a professional witness - nor were you. Who am I or you to decide that a 757 would have done more damage or in fact that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon?



    What you're saying doesn't add up.

    If it was all a conspiracy why would those who were behind it make such an amateurish mistake? With such a degree of incompetence surely someone 'in the know' would have spoken out about it? Surely creating more damage would make it wholly more convincing and get greater support of it's cause?
    The black is infront of the plane because to cover the white of the plane it logically has to be, how can something in the background be in front of the plane? :confused:.

    The fact I can use my brain to make decisions without being forcefully told by others. Logic suggests a wing at 500mph is going to break support columns.

    It did in the towers, why not here?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by caw123)
    Relevant video worth watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
    When someone proves with maths that a 757 wing traveling at xxxmph would not break through a support column I will accept it.

    It did in the twin towers and I see no logical reason why it would not at the Pentagon.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    The black is infront of the plane because to cover the white of the plane it logically has to be, how can something in the background be in front of the plane? :confused:.
    Before:

    Attachment 81074

    After:

    Attachment 81075

    The black object is present before the crash - it is part of the background.

    Logic suggests a wing at 500mph is going to break support columns. It did in the towers, why not here?
    1) It did.

    2) The structure of the pentagon is different to the structure of the twin towers hence the level of damage is different.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    Before:

    Attachment 81074

    After:

    Attachment 81075

    The black object is present before the crash - it is part of the background.



    1) It did.

    2) The structure of the pentagon is different to the structure of the twin towers hence the level of damage is different.
    Ok, I made a mistake on the image. From images I have seen, the building is intact where the wings would have hit?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by death_on_the_stairs)
    The reason I didn't read it is because you essentially told me the outcome. Regarding the video, touche, maybe things can collapse from fire. I'm still not a believer though. I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one mango. You do put up a good argument though, have some rep. Fair play.:yy:
    Fair enough. I'd still recommend reading up on evidence that's debunks the conspiracy theories as well as the theories themselves if you're still interested in them in the future, just so you know all the arguments on both sides. I'll return the rep.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It was John Terry..
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    When someone proves with maths that a 757 wing traveling at xxxmph would not break through a support column I will accept it.

    It did in the twin towers and I see no logical reason why it would not at the Pentagon.
    Well the main hole at the Pentagon was 96 feet wide, easily accommodating the fuselage, engines and fuel tanks in the wings.


    Large version without measurements

    Note that the wingtips did not sever columns at the WTC, they only damaged the aluminium facing, and that the Pentagon has a much heavier masonry façade.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I know this is a long thread and I'm seemingly in the minority but I personally believe that it was clearly an inside job. I could go into all the reasons why I believe this after researching it but I'd say the most clincher for me was HOW the WTC buildings fell on that day... All diving symmetrically at free-fall speed which bears the hallmarks of controlled demolitions and there are numerous eye witnesses who have said they heard explosions in the buildings. Why have we not heard this in the mainstream media? I'm tired of the manipulation that is going on all the time and tired of seeing conformity and naivity from most people... What striked me after reading much of this thread is that many of you are too scared to admit to the idea of it been an inside job as it's too horrific and it's almost as if you have to mock anyone who suggests it may be in order to convince yourself it isn't. I don't understand why you all hold such hostility towards people who actually think critically about what we're told and don't bow down to much of the propaganda which is perpetuated. Tired of hearing people who believe governments are benevolent and always thinking about the citizens, if we have learned anything from history it is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Wish people would wake up and realise that most of what we're told from the mainstream media is actually the REAL ********. But oh no all people who believe in these "conspiracies" are "crazy", "nuts", "idiots" because the government has never lied to us before and never will.

    ...Where are those weapons of mass destruction Tony?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Bush made a stupid decision to have the military look for WMDs. Now we're freaking broke.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fr3shmang0)
    It has pretty much been proven that the US government were not behind 9/11... Please don't approach the issue with a ******** conclusion and try and find seemingly anomalous events or occurrences as use it as 'proof' for your inane theories. Do some proper research. It's rather infuriating when people bloody the hands of the US with murders they didn't actually commit.

    Your arguments are fallacies. Red herrings.

    i didnt say i believed that, im making the point that you dont know either way.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Reviving an old thread but another post about the supposed 'Illuminati' got me thinking on all the random clips of footage I've come across on the matter.

    As to whether the U.S. government had any involvement in it - I really don't know.

    A part of me knows that it is a bit of a far-fetched conspiracy theory and shouldn't even really be considered, but then another part of me thinks that there's always the possibility that the government and the system in general is much more corrupt and full of unsavoury individuals than I would care to believe :erm:.

    I think a lot of the stuff circulating on Youtube and whatnot is really just people adding 2 + 2 and getting 5 but on the other hand, some interesting points are raised as to inaccurate, conflicting official reports and somewhat dodgy footage.

    I just watched this:

    .

    I think that the people who are so quick to say that it definitely was not a conspiracy are just as bad as those who claim it definitely was. After all, who can know for sure :holmes:?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think when you put it into context in how it was used as an excuse to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq then the only logical conclusion can be that it was an inside job of some kind, by that I mean that certain individuals within the US administration had prior knowledge of the attacks which were probably carried out either by or with the assistance of the CIA and/or Mossad. When you then add in the absurdity of the official story it really is painfully obvious.

    Unfortunately now this consensus is growing and the official story report has been completely torn apart and evidence disputing it has come to light it's just too little too late. The damage in Iraq and Afghanistan has already been done and as long as politicians continue to fail to recognise and actively ridicule the suggestion of there being US involvement, then we will never have a proper enquiry into who was involved.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm on the fence about it. I mean a couple of guys in a cave in the middle of the desert could they really pull off a job like that.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by payday5950)
    why are people soooo trusworthy of the government? As if they can't put a foot wrong - or they won't tell us lies.

    Nobody said they trusted the government 100%, don't exaggerate

    What exactly makes you so sure that your government have your best interests at heart? The answer is they don't...they are human after all and are looking after themselves and themselves only.

    So all humans look only after themselves? What about charitable organisations, or even your own mother who brought you up? Are these people only looking after themselves? Humans do things for other humans all the time, don't be so cynical

    The 9/11 conspiracy is perfectly plausible

    Not in reality, it would have required too many people not to leak information. People leak information all the time, just look at wikileaks.

    the only reason there isn't more circumstantial evidence is because the government obviously doesn't want the public to know about it (if its actually true). You don't think they would cover their tracks?

    No, actually, there is no evidence that it was an inside job. And the best reason there can be that there isn't more/any evidence is because it wasn't an inside job

    You don't think they would cover their tracks?

    I think they don't have the ability to cover their tracks 100% because of how incompetent humans are and how many people would have been involved

    These are professionals and we've seen how the CIA and FBI throughout history have been controversially surreptitious in their operations.

    The dodgy past of the CIA and FBI doesn't mean they would have necessarily wanted to or could have been able to pull off 9/11 as an inside job

    Furthermore, If propaganda was alive and well in the world war two era and before, why could it not happen now?

    There was propaganda in the form of posters, newspapers etc in the war. But nothing that is comparable to 9/11

    It does...but people fail to recognise the supreme influence the media has at controlling the mindset of the masses. You are not told what you don't need to know...end of.

    What makes you think you are so special to know that the government is 'hiding' from me? How have you recognised this but millions of other people haven't? Is it your superior intelligence, were you in on the job too, or is it just that there the conspiracy theory is false?


    Anyone who lives in a bubble of perfection oblivious to the motives and methods of authority figures needs to think more critically whenever they next watch the news (if indeed they do).

    Like I said, everybody knows that governments has ulterior motives. You're just exaggerating. Nobody fully trusts the government. Most people don't trust the government at all! It's just not plausible that 9/11 could have been pulled of successfully by the US government, and been kept a secret. Maybe you need to think more critically about this yourself.
    LeeC
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,750

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.