Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,954
- Reactions
- 1,152
These conspiracy videos are more likely produced with CIA help to convince would be copy cats that it is not worth trying same.
Islam: Is it inherently Evil?
- Thread starter Garpal Gumnut
- Start date
These conspiracy videos are more likely produced with CIA help to convince would be copy cats that it is not worth trying same.
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,954
- Reactions
- 1,152
Wysiwyg
Everyone wants money
- Joined
- 8 August 2006
- Posts
- 8,428
- Reactions
- 284
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,433
- Reactions
- 7,304
In the years after 9/11 I struggled with the range and volume of evidence and assertions that suggested the official story of the incidents were not true. In particular I thought the physics of what appeared to have happened was very suss.
I had let this go because in the end I couldn't decide or accept that in fact the US government had manufactured such a false flag operation. It was just too troubling.
Having said that on looking at the stories and the people telling them I still find the whole situation surreal. I don't think these people are lying or acting in bad faith. On the face of it it seems impossible for the alleged planes to have flown as fast as they did. The buildings did collapse in unaccountable ways.
In the end 9/11 was the trigger for the US to invade Iraq (on false pretences) and extend it's influence in the Middle East. It irrevocably demonised Islam .
And the US has plenty of form with previous false flag and interventionist operations.
Makes one wonder.
I had let this go because in the end I couldn't decide or accept that in fact the US government had manufactured such a false flag operation. It was just too troubling.
Having said that on looking at the stories and the people telling them I still find the whole situation surreal. I don't think these people are lying or acting in bad faith. On the face of it it seems impossible for the alleged planes to have flown as fast as they did. The buildings did collapse in unaccountable ways.
In the end 9/11 was the trigger for the US to invade Iraq (on false pretences) and extend it's influence in the Middle East. It irrevocably demonised Islam .
And the US has plenty of form with previous false flag and interventionist operations.
Makes one wonder.
PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,313
- Reactions
- 2,414
Here's a question for you then.
How did the buildings come down if it wasn't an aircraft strike?
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,433
- Reactions
- 7,304
Possibilities. None are mutually exclusive
1) A stike by some flying machine (not necessarily a civilian airliner)
2) Controlled demolition. The buildings were dropped deliberately
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,908
- Reactions
- 12,344
But there is video of planes flying into the buildings. It happened on live TV. Could that be faked ?
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,954
- Reactions
- 1,152
No it can't, but some people are conditioned to think that national might equates to infallibility, so a very few blokes taking down monster buildings just doesn't compute in the bleeding obvious part of their minds.... they trust phantoms
PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,313
- Reactions
- 2,414
Well we can rule out number 2
Because a demolition is noisy. Really really noisy. I was at lake Burley Griffin some 20 years ago when they demolished a hospital building. Notwithstanding the accidental deaths during the event, the process of bringing down that building - as with any controlled demolition - is to completely strip out the interior, wire up every support beam on several levels, and then a two stage blast process.
I was some 400 meters away. How loud was it? About as loud as a car tyre popping about 10 meters away. When you look at a typical demolition on youtube, you'll often notice the picture wobbles when the blast happens because whoever was holding the camera has just had the bejesus frightened out of them due to the intensity of the noise.
No noise at the WTC apart from jet noise and initial impact. No blasting.
Bringing down a 110 story building would have required at least a four stage blasting process.
That is why the first attack failed in 1993 - not enough bang for your buck.
One other thing. Neither tower fell down onto its own footprint as frequently stated. The south tower buckled at the impact zone and fell at an angle. The North tower didn't collapse in one piece. The spire that didn't fall stayed upright for the best part of 10 seconds before coming down.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,433
- Reactions
- 7,304
I find the whole 9/11 topic overwhelming and surreal. Attempting to pick over "evidence" of malpractice or cover ups seems to take one down rabbit holes that lead to warrens.
In that sense I have been interested in queries like "How could the civilian planes fly at 590 mph ?" Why did the third building just collapse without an air strike ?"
This offered some interesting perspectives.
https://www.gaia.com/lp/content/911-false-flag/
In that sense I have been interested in queries like "How could the civilian planes fly at 590 mph ?" Why did the third building just collapse without an air strike ?"
This offered some interesting perspectives.
https://www.gaia.com/lp/content/911-false-flag/
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,433
- Reactions
- 7,304
The Meta Bunk website offers an excellent range analysis of many conspiracy theory plots.
There are plenty on various aspects of 9/11.
https://www.metabunk.org/
There are plenty on various aspects of 9/11.
https://www.metabunk.org/
PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,313
- Reactions
- 2,414
Building 7 is one of the favourites for sure. You never see videos of the damaged side during the collapse. Just huge plumes of smoke. But you do see the elevator penthouse disappear first - taking several columns with it, then finally the shell. 20 seconds overall, but still very quiet compared to a demolition. Did you see the video of the dude stuck inside?
Richard Cage's comments crack me up even today. He reckons building 7 wasn't even on fire and the smoke came from building 5 instead - funny stuff
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
Basilio, you really surprise me. Although we hold probably very different political views, I cannot understand the questions you have raised above. They have been answered so many times by genuine experts and in such a plausible manner that I cannot see why you would countenance any of the so-called contrary evidence of the conspiracy theorists.
For example, everything regarding the towers falling in both the manner they did and due to the weakening of the steel structure has been shown beyond doubt by "Popular Mechanics" (independent of any government findings) to be not only completely plausible but the most likely outcome when aviation fuel explodes in such a confined space and continues burning without mitigation for a prolonged period.
The suggestion that the pilots, trained but relatively inexperienced, could not direct the planes into the towers is just laughable. They came in at a very wide angle and had ample time to adjust as they closed in on the towers. According to my son, a pilot, if they couldn't direct the aircraft towards such an easy target in perfect weather conditions, they would be complete incompetents. That is part and parcel of basic flying ability and if they couldn't do that they couldn't do anything. The suggestion in one of the videos from the OP that there were no planes (the fact that there were is proven beyond doubt by Rumpole's video above) but holographs is such utter nonsense. The coordination required between the holographs and the real explosion (and its direction, size, sound etc.) would simply not be within the realms of current capabilities and would have have resulted in many inconsistencies when subsequently scrutinised by the committees and other independent analysts.
I could go on. But even a rudimentary understanding of Occam's razor, would suggest that a plot of this magnitude and requiring thousands of people in its planning and execution could have been pulled off with such precision and without subsequent exposure by any of those involved is simply nonsense when the simpler and far more rational explanation is what the enquiries concluded and is supported by the evidence of thousands of independent observers. The conspiracy theorists say there are unanswered questions (there are none of significance and those that remain are mainly confined to what transpired on the hijacked planes), but their unanswered question defy rational explanation (What happened to the 4 planes? Their passengers and crew? The flight paths of the hijacked planes tracked and recorded on Fight Tracker, an app developed by an independent software company? The phone calls from some passengers to loved ones? Osama Bin Laden's admission? Intelligence from Germany that something of this nature was afoot by Al Qaeda? One could go on forever with their absurd nonsense that this was all a conspiracy)
Why would they do this with such a huge possibility of failure (remember this was under the presidency of the incompetent George W Bush). So they could invade Iraq? They were able to concoct the issue of WMDs just to do that, so why would they put themselves into such a high risk gamble that would undoubtedly, if exposed, have meant possibly a death sentence for the perpetrators, but at the very least life time jail sentences. And not one dissenter among those involved. Do you think republicans such as John McCain, who I do not agree with politically, but who has proven himself as a man of integrity due to his opposition to some of Trump's more radical policies, would have agreed to this? Even if confined to hard line extreme right wing Republicans (which by definition implies a collection of people at the low end of the IQ scale) how did they manage to persuade so many people with the required expertise to pull this off to come on board. We are literally talking of thousands of people, many with high expertise, when it comes to the scale of the task involved. Where did they find these experts who were willing to kill their fellow citizens and in so doing risk the death penalty? How come none involved have come forward and made a fortune by exposing what has happened (after receiving immunity from prosecution). And how would they have sussed out who would unequivocally support the plan? Do you think that anybody approached to become a participant but declined because they disagreed with the planned mass murder would not only have exposed what they had been asked to do before they event but also after the event, those realising it was not some kind of hoax they were asked to participate in, would not have told their story. We have had 2 Democrat administrations since the Bush era and no one from those administrations saw a need to question the official position, even though it would likely destroy the GOP.
The 9-11 conspiracy theorists are nutters, plain and simple. They self feed off other nutters on the internet. There are no respected experts agreeing with what they are suggesting. When you look at the credentials of their so called experts, you will find the bodies they are supposedly representing are newly concocted since 9-11 and have no credible authority.
Yesterday VC posted a video of the Falcon Heavy take off and journey to space. Watching that video one could see without doubt as the craft left the Earth's orbit that the Earth was a sphere. It wasn't a flat disk as some internet nutters suggest. That the Earth was a sphere was as evidential from that video as the fact that a plane flew into the second tower was from Rumpole's video. Yet look at some of the comments on the Falcon Heavy video (there are probably 20 or more videos of it on YouTube). The flat-earthers are out in force claiming the videos have been doctored to make it look like the Earth is a sphere. The 9-11 conspiracies should be treated with the same contempt as those of the flat-earthers.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,433
- Reactions
- 7,304
That is a really interesting analysis Bellenuit. I like to believe I am vary cautious with many assertions made on the net. And I do make a point of fact checking as far as possible and probably get very cross when others blithly repeat rubbish that is easily proven a lie.
When one presents the 9/11 in the way you have it seems totally absurd to consider any other option than the one presented. Occam's Razor principle clearly comes to play.
I watched 9/11 unfold live as it happened. From the hit on the first tower to the second to stories of other planes crashing into the Pentagon. It was surreal at the time. It felt like an unfolding movie epic but one was realising this was happening in real time and the consequences seemed terrifyingly unknowable.
I am very aware of the readiness of conspiracy theorists to come up with alternative explanations to what has happened. Frankly I had no thoughts about possible conspiracy theories until many months after 9/11. By accident I then found the theories that abounded and started to become intrigued by questions of "Why are there no plane parts ?" "How did the buildings collapse so neatly" and a hundred others.
As I said previously I found the whole exercise just did my head in and I finally let it go.
On the bigger picture I have absolutely no problem thinking the US government (or others) couldn't undertake secret ops to achieve a political goal. The reality is that the US routinely overthrew unfriendly governments, killed perceived enemies, and ran programs that were just criminal. So the seed of possibility is there. But as you point out the size and scale of what happened on 9/11 beggars belief.
Differentiating between fact, lies, creations or just imagination on the net is more and more challenging. I can remember some exceptional business scams I have seen and initially accepted until time, further research and reality caught up. And I'm certain these are still in abundance and probably becoming more sophisticated
I don't actually think all the people who query 9/11 are "nutters". ( on many other topics probably more so..) That is probably the scary/challenging part for me on this topic. Trying to reconcile what seems to be unreconcilable.
And in no way have I spent the time trying to "understand" all the queries. But I have to say I am piqued by the observations that suggest the planes just couldn't have flow at the speed the appeared to have been measured at.
When one presents the 9/11 in the way you have it seems totally absurd to consider any other option than the one presented. Occam's Razor principle clearly comes to play.
I watched 9/11 unfold live as it happened. From the hit on the first tower to the second to stories of other planes crashing into the Pentagon. It was surreal at the time. It felt like an unfolding movie epic but one was realising this was happening in real time and the consequences seemed terrifyingly unknowable.
I am very aware of the readiness of conspiracy theorists to come up with alternative explanations to what has happened. Frankly I had no thoughts about possible conspiracy theories until many months after 9/11. By accident I then found the theories that abounded and started to become intrigued by questions of "Why are there no plane parts ?" "How did the buildings collapse so neatly" and a hundred others.
As I said previously I found the whole exercise just did my head in and I finally let it go.
On the bigger picture I have absolutely no problem thinking the US government (or others) couldn't undertake secret ops to achieve a political goal. The reality is that the US routinely overthrew unfriendly governments, killed perceived enemies, and ran programs that were just criminal. So the seed of possibility is there. But as you point out the size and scale of what happened on 9/11 beggars belief.
Differentiating between fact, lies, creations or just imagination on the net is more and more challenging. I can remember some exceptional business scams I have seen and initially accepted until time, further research and reality caught up. And I'm certain these are still in abundance and probably becoming more sophisticated
I don't actually think all the people who query 9/11 are "nutters". ( on many other topics probably more so..) That is probably the scary/challenging part for me on this topic. Trying to reconcile what seems to be unreconcilable.
And in no way have I spent the time trying to "understand" all the queries. But I have to say I am piqued by the observations that suggest the planes just couldn't have flow at the speed the appeared to have been measured at.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,908
- Reactions
- 12,344
The cruising speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph. With full throttles and in a dive I'm sure it could get to 590.
590 mph at sea level is Mach 0.77. The design cruising speed of a 767 is 0.8 mach, so 590 mph is well within its capability.
- Joined
- 21 April 2014
- Posts
- 7,956
- Reactions
- 1,070
I saw a doco on how the buildings collapsed some years back. Basically the jet fuel burnt through the fire-resistant coating, then the bolts and steel. The way the Twin Towers was built meant that once the steel structure on a few floors gave way, the top would collapse on down like pancakes.
I haven't gone beyond that to look at alternative explanation.
If we go conspiracy theory, I actually agree with The Real News' Paul Jay's version of "leaving the backdoor open".
His thinking was that the Bush Jr. admin wanted war with Iraq and Iran... The US aren't exactly beloved in the Middle East even then. With so many enemies and terrorists always scheming to harm you, all you need to do is look the other way, leave the back door open and they will take care of the rest.
Their attack will be real, it will unite your plebs to permit unlimited war... You don't get your hands dirty, don't get caught and get to do whatever you want.
I wouldn't put such thing past the likes of Cheney. Maybe he/they don't see the scale of the attack; maybe they just needed a couple of failed attempts... but yea, that, to me, make more sense than getting the CIA involved. That and with so many people and parties involved, the chances of a leak and lifetime imprisonment would be too high.
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
Just taking that one claim. There were plane parts.
Pentagon...
https://www.quora.com/Why-was-there-no-plane-wreckage-in-9-11-terrorist-attacks-on-the-Pentagon
Near Twin Towers......
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/26/us/new-york-9-11-plane-part/index.html
Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies
Nepotism, bias, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | August 10 2006
Popular Mechanics has re-entered the media circus in an attempt to continue its 9/11 debunking campaign that began in March of last year. A new book claims to expose the myths of the 9/11 truth movement, yet it is Popular Mechanics who have been exposed as promulgating falsehoods while engaging in nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics.
It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.
The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?
Popular Mechanics' March 2005 front cover story was entitled 'Debunking 9/11 Lies' and has since become the bellwether reference point for all proponents of the official 9/11 fairytale.
Following the publication of the article and its exaltation by the mainstream media as the final nail in the coffin for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed that senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
This means that Benjamin Chertoff was hired to write an article that would receive nationwide attention, about the veracity of the government's explanation of an event that led directly to the creation of Homeland Security, a body that his own cousin now heads.
This is unparalleled nepotism and completely dissolves the credibility of the article before one has even turned the first page.
The arguments presented in the article have been widely debunked by the 9/11 truth community as an example of a straw man hatchet job - whereby false arguments are erected, attributed to 9/11 skeptics, and then shot down.
One of the most glaring errors in the Popular Mechanics hit piece appears in the 'Intercepts Not Routine' section where it is claimed that, "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."
As Jim Hoffman points out in his excellent rebuttal, "This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!"
"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said."
The article also makes no mention whatsoever of the numerous war games scheduled for the morning of 9/11 which confused air defense personnel as to the true nature of the attack as it unfolded, as is documented by the recent release of the NORAD tapes.
A section on the collapse of the World Trade Center fails to address firefighters and other individuals who reported numerous explosions before the towers fell, squibs of debris seen shooting out of the towers well below the collapse point, and the fact that the towers fell only slightly slower than absolute free fall.
The article was released before analysis conducted by BYU physics Professor Steven Jones discovered traces of thermite in steel samples taken from the World Trade Center.
"Using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples - we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese - these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate," said Professor Jones.
The article regurgitates pancake and truss theories yet fails to acknowledge the comments of WTC construction manager Frank DeMartini (below) who before 9/11 stated that the buildings were designed to take multiple airliner impacts and not collapse.
The article also completely fails to answer why pools of molten yellow metal were found underneath both towers and Building 7 subsequent to the collapses.
The classic crimp implosion of Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, is glossed over as the piece again tries to mislead its readers into believing that over engineered steel buildings collapse from fire damage - an event unprecedented in world history aside from three examples in one single day.
Nepotism, bias, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | August 10 2006
Popular Mechanics has re-entered the media circus in an attempt to continue its 9/11 debunking campaign that began in March of last year. A new book claims to expose the myths of the 9/11 truth movement, yet it is Popular Mechanics who have been exposed as promulgating falsehoods while engaging in nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics.
It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.
The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?
Popular Mechanics' March 2005 front cover story was entitled 'Debunking 9/11 Lies' and has since become the bellwether reference point for all proponents of the official 9/11 fairytale.
Following the publication of the article and its exaltation by the mainstream media as the final nail in the coffin for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed that senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
This means that Benjamin Chertoff was hired to write an article that would receive nationwide attention, about the veracity of the government's explanation of an event that led directly to the creation of Homeland Security, a body that his own cousin now heads.
This is unparalleled nepotism and completely dissolves the credibility of the article before one has even turned the first page.
The arguments presented in the article have been widely debunked by the 9/11 truth community as an example of a straw man hatchet job - whereby false arguments are erected, attributed to 9/11 skeptics, and then shot down.
One of the most glaring errors in the Popular Mechanics hit piece appears in the 'Intercepts Not Routine' section where it is claimed that, "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."
As Jim Hoffman points out in his excellent rebuttal, "This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!"
"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said."
The article also makes no mention whatsoever of the numerous war games scheduled for the morning of 9/11 which confused air defense personnel as to the true nature of the attack as it unfolded, as is documented by the recent release of the NORAD tapes.
A section on the collapse of the World Trade Center fails to address firefighters and other individuals who reported numerous explosions before the towers fell, squibs of debris seen shooting out of the towers well below the collapse point, and the fact that the towers fell only slightly slower than absolute free fall.
The article was released before analysis conducted by BYU physics Professor Steven Jones discovered traces of thermite in steel samples taken from the World Trade Center.
"Using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples - we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese - these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate," said Professor Jones.
The article regurgitates pancake and truss theories yet fails to acknowledge the comments of WTC construction manager Frank DeMartini (below) who before 9/11 stated that the buildings were designed to take multiple airliner impacts and not collapse.
The article also completely fails to answer why pools of molten yellow metal were found underneath both towers and Building 7 subsequent to the collapses.
The classic crimp implosion of Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, is glossed over as the piece again tries to mislead its readers into believing that over engineered steel buildings collapse from fire damage - an event unprecedented in world history aside from three examples in one single day.
Similar threads
