Turn on thread page Beta

9/11: conspiracy theory watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: do you think 9/11 was an inside job?
    yes
    25
    28.09%
    no
    64
    71.91%

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Devel)
    What about the fact that the breach in the Pentagon was not the size of a plane and the fact the local gas stations security cameras showing the actual event were confiscated in minutes of the event. I'm not arguing either way, just curious. :yep:
    Surely if they had planned it, it would have made more sense to get rid of the cameras before they've filmed the whole thing, not after?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjkkll)
    This is what i call undeniable evidence, and you cannot say that it is incorrect as reference books can confirm the scientific side to this as well as actuall experimentation.

    and yes it does seem dificult to belive but you cannot say it is IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

    nothing is imposible it may be dificult to understand how and why..
    It is impossible for a building to fall at free fall speed despite what would of been massive resistive forces from the inside and exoskelton of the still perfectally intact rest of the building.
    Plus the three steel buildings that fell that day were the first in history to collpase under a fire.
    The official explanation defies the laws of physics and is therefore impossible.
    The buildings would definaltey of fell at an angle, as the steel structure would be of weakened more the side the plane hit.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roobagnall)
    one bit went before the others.

    The force and stain it was already under took the rest of it with it.

    DUH
    no no. you are missing the point. the building was hit by the plane at an awkwrard angle. the side which was it by the plane woulde have been hotter - jet fuel and what not- than the rest of the building. assuming the building was to fall from the heat alone, the building would have fallen towards the sidethe jet crashed on not straight down like it did
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjkkll)
    LOOOOOOOOOL snmart ass 9/11 as in 11th septermber 2001
    Oh, thanks - I'd been struggling with that one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sam o0o)
    There's a difference between arguing about the way something "is", and how something happened.
    Those cases are nothing like this, and what the Church said was just generally accepted. In the case of 9-11, the evidence is there that terrorists are the only ones to blame, and people really have to scrape the barrel to argue anything else (such as using examples from hundreds/thousands of years ago :p: ).

    nevermind, im just saing never beliver everything or assume, or think that something is not possible becuase you cant belive it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stargirl001)
    Im no expert on the subject but AFAIK the reason the planes werent shot down was because to do that they had to have permission from Bush, the air force cant just shoot down commercial airliners. It says something about it in the film United 93. Very good film, I suggest you watch it.
    That film had me in tears!!!

    But no, 9/11 was NOT a conspiracy, an inside job or whatever you wanna call it! It seems too idiotic of the government to be true. WHy would they attack their own country when there is nothing to gain? At least when they attack other countries they can get some nice oil from it...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roobagnall)
    THE ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION?!

    YOUR A COMPLETE NARGLE
    You give me any evidence that refutes anthing I said, otherwise you are the "Nargle"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HJV)
    Surely if they had planned it, it would have made more sense to get rid of the cameras before they've filmed the whole thing, not after?

    it it was planned tooo carefully this would have caused too much conspiricy, and WHO CARES, i wasnt involved
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjkkll)
    nevermind, im just saing never beliver everything or assume, or think that something is not possible becuase you cant belive it.
    Stop doing that dammit! (Not just talking about typos btw :p: )

    I don't "assume"...I make my own mind up based on evidence and facts, and in this case, there are mountains of evidence pointing towards terrorism, and tbh, nothing but heresay to suggest an inside job.

    *Deep breath*
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    i heard they werent planes, they were trains. think about it people.


    what a dumb thread/thread starter.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    As much as I would like to prove or disprove these things. For the roots of conspiracies you've only got to look at Lockerbie, there was a lot of information known before hand but not all of it reached the right people. Not only that though, the CIA was supposedly involved in some very dodgy stuff to justify its own existence, this all fuels conspiracy theories.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjkkll)
    This is what i call undeniable evidence, and you cannot say that it is incorrect as reference books can confirm the scientific side to this as well as actuall experimentation.

    and yes it does seem dificult to belive but you cannot say it is IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

    nothing is imposible it may be dificult to understand how and why..
    God I hope you don't become my doctor.


    Some scientists in the states have built a complex computer model of the building, and the way it fell is exactly as the computer model predicts. I can't remember exactly why, I think it was outlined in the BBC documentary, but the building lost all its structural integrity, resulting in it collapsing at near free fall, there simply wasn't much of a resistive force.

    If anyone else says 'well it looks like a controlled demolition to me', I'll get pissed off. Buildings are very complicated and its taken top structural engineers years to properly model the building, and I'd quite like those who disagree with them based on their B in GCSE physics to stfu.

    Also, why the hell are the views of architects used? I think it was (the one and only) House that said 'a doctor telling someone that they are going to die is like an engineer explaining to an architect why their building fell down'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sam o0o)
    Stop doing that dammit! (Not just talking about typos btw :p: )

    I don't "assume"...I make my own mind up based on evidence and facts, and in this case, there are mountains of evidence pointing towards terrorism, and tbh, nothing but heresay to suggest an inside job.

    *Deep breath*

    LOL i dont even think it was an inside job, nor do i really care, i just love arguments/disscusions :woo: (expecially stupid ones like this), but i rate the OP for making it it gained ALOT of interest and some hillarious comments.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by munchie_rox)
    i heard they werent planes, they were trains. think about it people.


    what a dumb thread/thread starter.
    You can see the tracks people!!

    Haha, this thread needed that
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2nd2god)
    It is impossible for a building to fall at free fall speed despite what would of been massive resistive forces from the inside and exoskelton of the still perfectally intact rest of the building.
    Plus the three steel buildings that fell that day were the first in history to collpase under a fire.
    The official explanation defies the laws of physics and is therefore impossible.
    The buildings would definaltey of fell at an angle, as the steel structure would be of weakened more the side the plane hit.
    The most accurate computer model of the building disagrees with you and your 'physics'.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by munchie_rox)
    i heard they werent planes, they were trains. think about it people.


    what a dumb thread/thread starter.
    I heard this, also. Lol :woo:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjkkll)
    LOL i dont even think it was an inside job, nor do i really care, i just love arguments/disscusions :woo: (expecially stupid ones like this), but i rate the OP for making it it gained ALOT of interest and some hillarious comments.
    Well it's definitely a good way to pass the time...shame I can't put down my contributions to these threads on my personal statement :rolleyes:

    It's odd how most of the "experts" who back up the theory are American. It's a conspiracy!!!!!!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by munchie_rox)
    i heard they werent planes, they were trains. think about it people.


    what a dumb thread/thread starter.
    And if you look closely at the smoke from one of the towers, with a bit of photoshop you can make out the words 'bush did this for oil lol'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robob)
    God I hope you don't become my doctor.


    Some scientists in the states have built a complex computer model of the building, and the way it fell is exactly as the computer model predicts. I can't remember exactly why, I think it was outlined in the BBC documentary, but the building lost all its structural integrity, resulting in it collapsing at near free fall, there simply wasn't much of a resistive force.

    If anyone else says 'well it looks like a controlled demolition to me', I'll get pissed off. Buildings are very complicated and its taken top structural engineers years to properly model the building, and I'd quite like those who disagree with them based on their B in GCSE physics to stfu.

    Also, why the hell are the views of architects used? I think it was (the one and only) House that said 'a doctor telling someone that they are going to die is like an engineer explaining to an architect why their building fell down'.

    id make a good doctor becuase im not a nut case i promise i just like controversy. and yes i have no idea about a demolitions and structure of buildings other than what iv learnt in a level physics, but iv done no degree.

    and all these people who say it looks like a demolition they do need to ask themselvs where the have seen demolitions (IE in films.)


    great source of information.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reagan Smash)
    That film had me in tears!!!

    But no, 9/11 was NOT a conspiracy, an inside job or whatever you wanna call it! It seems too idiotic of the government to be true. WHy would they attack their own country when there is nothing to gain? At least when they attack other countries they can get some nice oil from it...
    There was plenty to gain first the 7 billion the owner of the world trade centres gained from taking out that insurance policy plus the billion he would had to of paid to get rid of the absetos.
    Plus all the 12* normal levels of put options put on anything to do with airliners or the world trade centre, made traders with inside knowledge billions.

    Then theres the fact before a war, the most common tatic employed used by Hitler in Pearl Harbour and any war America has partaken in.
    Is to stage an attack then plant evidence and pretend the people you want to attack did it, Hitler blew up his own hall for this. So you can win over the public, also in the report of the new age America it said "We need an effect like a new pearl harbour, to catalyize our goals" or something along those lines.
    Without 9/11 theres no way Bush would of been allowed to go to war, to get the strategical advantage of controlling oil supplies by building his oil pipeline to see of the advancing threat of places like China
    They had every reason to stage this attack, a better question is what did Osama Bin Ladan or Al Queda gain out of this attack if they held it, the answer is nothing they lost everything.
    Plus Osama Bin Laden and the Bushs have been trading partners (Osama Bin Laden pouring money into Bushs oil company) for many years, it was a fix.
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
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.