Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Student2806)
    It wasn't a continuous feed - the stills updated only every few seconds. Given that the camera only covered an area of about 40-50m in front of the building and the fact that the plane was travelling at 500mph+, capturing it clearly would have been impossible.
    Ok one answered.

    Metal or carbon fibre does not melt within 0.05 seconds.

    So where is the wing impact on the building?

    You can see it on the towers.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liverpool F.C.™)
    It was bush.
    Care to explain?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    LMAO.

    3,000 is over 1,000

    She said it was over 1,000

    So she was right.

    I thought by saying over 1,000 she implied it was around that figure, which of course is a lot less accurate than saying it was around 3,000 considering it was most likely somewhere between 2950 and 3000; hence, I said 3,000.

    :facepalm:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hum, 1000 or 3000 is basically jus the same. I know that it can seem horrible to say that, and I would not blame any one for insulting me there, but come on, the earthquake in Haita...around 100,000 people died, even though we cannot be sure of these figures.
    The civil war in Darfour...around 300,000 died according to USA, Canada, Israël studies; and these are just two exemples.

    So come on, the number of dead cannot be an argument of ANY SORT in favour of the official thesis.
    And I'm not saying that it was the government, mainly because I think that they are not intelligent enough, but the people who are 100% sure can only be wrong. The world is not black and white anymore, and if you believe everything you are told (ie official version) without asking yourself questions, then YOU are the moron. (again, I'm not defending the conspiracy theory, I'm just defending the legitimacy of doubts and questioning in modern society)
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Student2806)
    It wasn't a continuous feed - the stills updated only every few seconds. Given that the camera only covered an area of about 40-50m in front of the building and the fact that the plane was travelling at 500mph+, capturing it clearly would have been impossible.
    Also

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8

    1:27 you can clearly see something come into the camera on the right.

    Are 767 nose is far far bigger then that, so why is that thing there?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    What was the reason why a 150ft or whatever wingspan made a 60ft hole?

    And why it wasn't on the camera?

    Generally interested for a logical explanation.
    What about BBC News saying that WTC 7 had collapsed when it was clearly visible in the background behind the reporter. This was a full 26 minutes before it actually did collapse!?

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...c7_videos.html

    Some of these theories are utter sh!te but there are a few things that dont stack up. Look on youtube for videos showing the towers collapsing. You can clearly see explosions happening up the side if the building just before it came down.

    I'm not a conspiracy maniac but like I said, things just dont stack up.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by WhuTom)
    I thought by saying over 1,000 she implied it was around that figure, which of course is a lot less accurate than saying it was around 3,000 considering it was most likely somewhere between 2950 and 3000; hence, I said 3,000.

    :facepalm:
    Yes it might be inaccurate but its not wrong.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I genuinely don't think they're clever enough to pull it off themselves. I mean I think it was in the either the film Fahrenheit 9/11 or Sicko (not that I share Michael Moores views etc) when a car pulled up with 'Secret Service' written on the side. They got out and started to question him as to why he was filming. Clearly letting them know they were in the secret service.

    Not very inconspicuous hey!!
    Offline

    2
    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. 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. The 9/11 conspiracy is perfectly plausible - 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? These are professionals and we've seen how the CIA and FBI throughout history have been controversially surreptitious in their operations. Furthermore, If propaganda was alive and well in the world war two era and before, why could it not happen now? 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. 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).
    "The government doesn't always tell the truth" is not really a very good reason to believe some random guy who made a youtube video, though.

    I found that people who do believe the conspiracy theories are usually not very open to arguments along the lines of 'the government wouldn't do such a cruel thing because...' since they're adamant that governments are always liars.

    I therefore would like to add the following point to the discussion: Imagine you were some kind of high-ranking government official planning a terror attack against your own country and blaming others for it. What do you do? Two examples:

    -Find people who will kidnap two planes and fly them into buildings. (Depending on which conspiracy theory you like, also add missiles hitting the pentagon, one plane going totally missing and extra explosives in the WTC.)

    -Put a large bomb into a truck and blow it up in some city.

    The former is so much more difficult, and there's so many things that can go wrong (what if your pilots miss the targets? what if one of the pilots runs away and tells other people? where do you get that mysterious missile from without someone noticing that it's missing? what if your pilots are caught?) while the latter would be relatively easy and have a very similar effect.

    It just doesn't seem a very good plan for an inside job.

    Tbh, the FBI/Homeland security are not really helping by holding back loads of evidence, including video tapes they confiscated from CCTV and random people - it just fuels the conspiracy theorists and there's nothing to gain from it really apart from keeping some folks who like secret stuff satisfied.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Watch a decent documentary on it and see what you think.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by death_on_the_stairs)
    What about BBC News saying that WTC 7 had collapsed when it was clearly visible in the background behind the reporter. This was a full 26 minutes before it actually did collapse!
    Why the **** would the government have alerted the BBC of their plans?
    • PS Helper
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    4
    PS Helper
    Wiki Support Team
    Hmm. No, I don't think it was an inside job, but there are definitely things that don't add up, so perhaps I wouldn't be surprised if it did turn out to be one.. but I don't think it was :dontknow:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    dramatic music + slow action replays + zooming + red circling insignificant details + authoritative narrator voice tone + bullshít = your typical conspiracy video/documentary
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moe Lester)
    Care to explain?
    Neither can it be proven that it was Bin Laden or anyone. Believing it just because the media or government says it is not good enough.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Y__)
    "The government doesn't always tell the truth" is not really a very good reason to believe some random guy who made a youtube video, though.

    I found that people who do believe the conspiracy theories are usually not very open to arguments along the lines of 'the government wouldn't do such a cruel thing because...' since they're adamant that governments are always liars.

    I therefore would like to add the following point to the discussion: Imagine you were some kind of high-ranking government official planning a terror attack against your own country and blaming others for it. What do you do? Two examples:

    -Find people who will kidnap two planes and fly them into buildings. (Depending on which conspiracy theory you like, also add missiles hitting the pentagon, one plane going totally missing and extra explosives in the WTC.)

    -Put a large bomb into a truck and blow it up in some city.

    The former is so much more difficult, and there's so many things that can go wrong (what if your pilots miss the targets? what if one of the pilots runs away and tells other people? where do you get that mysterious missile from without someone noticing that it's missing? what if your pilots are caught?) while the latter would be relatively easy and have a very similar effect.

    It just doesn't seem a very good plan for an inside job.

    Tbh, the FBI/Homeland security are not really helping by holding back loads of evidence, including video tapes they confiscated from CCTV and random people - it just fuels the conspiracy theorists and there's nothing to gain from it really apart from keeping some folks who like secret stuff satisfied.
    if you actually read what I said you'll find I Didn't say either way whether or not it was set up. I also NEVER mentioned farenheit 911 or whatever. There are other sources out there. What I said was, there is no reason the government couldn't have had a hand in this. You are right to say that it would have been much easier to perform the latter example however, this excludes the possibility that the government LET this happen. All I was saying was the government are not always as honest as people think and there are a million and one different things they are capable of and which we may never know the full extent of because we are not supposed to know.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Load of crap imo.

    But it would probably be worth mentioning the history America has for things like this (Operation Northwoods)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bowdeni)
    Any conspiracy relies on huge competence in the US government which has clearly been demonstrated; is impossible.
    :giggle:

    OP, I suggest you read something scholarly about this topic rather than rely on mostly 1-liners from TSR members! :p:

    Watch Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) for anti-American coverage of the days / weeks / months following 9/11 but it doesn't cover the event as being an "inside job".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by death_on_the_stairs)
    What about BBC News saying that WTC 7 had collapsed when it was clearly visible in the background behind the reporter. This was a full 26 minutes before it actually did collapse!?

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...c7_videos.html
    News agencies around the world are fed their information by a variety of outside sources, not just their own reporters. It only takes one small mistake, a mix up in communications or a misinterpretation somewhere along the line between sender and receiver for what happened on BBC News to occur. This was especially applicable on 9/11 in New York, when there was complete chaos and media outlets were being overloaded with information from every direction. No one had a completely accurate picture of what was going on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJkG.1)
    Watch Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) for anti-American coverage of the days / weeks / months following 9/11 but it doesn't cover the event as being an "inside job".
    I'd also recommend you read the 9/11 Commission Report, you can debunk some of the stuff Michael Moore says using that.

    DJkG.1, do you believe 9/11 was an inside job?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moe Lester)
    Why the **** would the government have alerted the BBC of their plans?
    I dont personally know. 1 plausible explanation is that someone made a collosal f*ck up and put out the news story too early.

    What I find more disturbing is that both hard copies of the video (in seperate locations) have gone missing without an explanation. This only fuels the 'cover up' fire.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.