PDA

View Full Version : 9/11 Conspiracy Evidence



Skate Rat 19
05-14-2006, 02:59 PM
I know I've done some dumb things here before but this video is actually kinda stunning if you really consider the evidence he shows you here.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-
2023320890224991194&q=loose+change

Demon_of_Debauchery
05-14-2006, 03:00 PM
It doesn't work

Jakebert
05-14-2006, 03:20 PM
I'm not even going to bother looking at that, because I'm 100% sure it's the same old bullshit about how Bush wanted 9/11 to happen that only retarded 13 year olds can actually buy.

Nood!es
05-14-2006, 03:41 PM
Fuck that dude. Im not watching that. Too long. And its a theory. Not a fact. Meaning that its not been proven in any way shape or form.

ermdevi@tion
05-15-2006, 04:49 AM
I'm not even going to bother looking at that, because I'm 100% sure it's the same old bullshit about how Bush wanted 9/11 to happen that only retarded 13 year olds can actually buy.

I've seen the film and, from memory, it doesn't have that much stuff in about potential political reasons for the Bush administration supporting/failing to prevent the attacks. It mostly goes over the problems with the official version of events regarding the actual attacks themselves (missiles, jet fighters, bombs in the towers, "perfect" collapse patterns, no debris or fringe damage at the Pentagon etc.)

So regarding it being "retarded", it most definitely isn't. As an aeronautics enthusiast, I can tell you that it presents correct and valuable evidence which completely contradicts the Bush administration's version of events - especially with regards to how the towers collapsed and the strike on the Pentagon.

Edit: Oh, and Nood!es - it presents better evidence for its "theory" than the official enquiries ever did.

Placebo14
05-15-2006, 06:03 AM
I saw a show just the other day about a 9/11 conspiracy.

To tell you the truth, there is a lot of evidence saying Bush/American government was involved.

But, yes I know its just a theory, im not stupid.

jacknife737
05-15-2006, 11:45 AM
Edit: Oh, and Nood!es - it presents better evidence for its "theory" than the official enquiries ever did.

So you've read the 9/11 commission?

endlesst0m
05-15-2006, 03:19 PM
I'm not even going to bother looking at that, because I'm 100% sure it's the same old bullshit about how Bush wanted 9/11 to happen that only retarded 13 year olds can actually buy.

A lot of things I've seen in that video and others bring up points that really make me question what I've been told. What aspects of the video are bogus to you?

Little_Miss_1565
05-15-2006, 04:12 PM
I'm not even going to bother looking at that, because I'm 100% sure it's the same old bullshit about how Bush wanted 9/11 to happen that only retarded 13 year olds can actually buy.

Are former Bush associates who say Bush wanted 9/11 "retarded 13 year olds"? Do you watch the news?

ermdevi@tion
05-15-2006, 05:42 PM
So you've read the 9/11 commission?

Do you have time or the endurance to read over 500 pages of bureaucratic waffle? Because I certainly don't. To quote Bill Bailey, I'm a "relaxed empiricist". That is, if I consider a source to be trustworthy, I will largely accept what they state - and thus I have gathered my knowledge from summaries, essays, articles etc.

Additionally, one of the main points levied against the 9/11 Commission was that it simply excluded a lot of data and talked its way round issues, not actually addressing them.

jacknife737
05-15-2006, 06:24 PM
Do you have time or the endurance to read over 500 pages of bureaucratic waffle? Because I certainly don't. To quote Bill Bailey, I'm a "relaxed empiricist". That is, if I consider a source to be trustworthy, I will largely accept what they state - and thus I have gathered my knowledge from summaries, essays, articles etc.

If you have time to gather your 'knowledge from summaries, essays and articles' surely you have the time to read 500 pages.



Additionally, one of the main points levied against the 9/11 Commission was that it simply excluded a lot of data and talked its way round issues, not actually addressing them.

I don't really care that much, but if you would kindly point out specifically the sections of the report where data is lacking.

ermdevi@tion
05-16-2006, 04:16 AM
If you have time to gather your 'knowledge from summaries, essays and articles' surely you have the time to read 500 pages.

No - 500 pages of dry bureaucratic waffle would require weeks of reading and scrutinising. Yeah, if my university funded a research project then I would be compelled to read it, but it ain't exactly something I can just pick up in my spare time to polish off.



I don't really care that much, but if you would kindly point out specifically the sections of the report where data is lacking.

- It does not contain an accurate explanation regarding the cause of collapse of either tower. In fact, it admits that the fires inside the buildings could not possibly have caused the collapse and then does not attempt to account for the collapse.

- It simply ignores the collapse of WTC7.

- It does not address the many characteristics of the WTC 1 and 2 rubble which leans towards a controlled demolition eg. smouldering for weeks afterwards, molten metal running in the ruins - not just immediately after the attack either, but for at least 6 weeks after the attack.

- It fails to address criticism of the claim that on the 16th of September, the authorities allegedly found Satam al Suqami's passport, an alleged hijacker. In an incident which saw steel melted, an entire building pulverised, this man's passport emerges?

- It also fails to address the video evidence of demolition squibs in both towers.

- The building fell at close to free-fall speed. Unless it had been brought down in a controlled manner, this violates the law of conservation of momentum. This was simply ignored in the report, even though data was available to test this theory.

- Without there being explosives present, the nature of the collapse (falling straight down) would breach the second law of thermodynamics. Data also existed to test this theory, but was also ignored.

- The "pancaking" effect which it was claimed caused the subsequent collapse of one floor after another is simply impossible based on the law of conservation of energy (based on figures without an outside acting force) due to the apparent pulverisation of the building materials.

- The pyrocrastic flows seen in the surrounding street of WTC 1 and 2 after their collapse were inconsistent with the law of conservation of energy. No attempts were made to address this.

- In both the flight list and autopsy of passengers from Flight77, no Arab men were found at all.

- Additionally, at first it was claimed there were 56 passengers by the airline, but in the autopsy team's report, they stated that of the 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were “passengers” on the plane. This discrepancy was never addressed.

- Why were jets not scrambled to protect the Pentagon? Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times when aircraft went off-course or off-radar.

- The report ignores many issues regarding the dimensions of the hole in the Pentagon, lack of debris, lack of wing damage, lack of damage to the lawn.

- Whatever struck the Pentagon only took out the ground floor initially, with the 4 upper floors collapsing later. How can a 15 yard high plane take out only one floor of a 25 yard high building? This was also not addressed.

- It fails to present a reasonable explanation for the multiple debris sites resulting from Flight93.

- It would have been nearly impossible to make cell phone calls from Flight93. In a study carried out in 2003, the chance of making a connection would have been around 0.006%. Yet it is claimed several calls were made by different passengers to both family and emergency services.

- Regarding the President's conduct, he claimed that on the morning of 9/11, he was waiting to enter a classroom and that on TV he saw "an airplane hit the tower — the TV was obviously on". This is impossible - there was no live footage of the first attack. Footage was released several hours later.

- There have been many reports of the alleged attackers still alive and well by credible sources (BBC, The Telegraph, The Guardian).

That's me done for now. I got a physics exam tomorrow that I've got to study for. This stuff is only a small sample of the information available regarding how truthful the "official" version of events is.

I can't draw a conclusion on the issue, and I doubt we will ever truly know what happened. However, in my mind there is enough evidence to show that the claims of the 9/11 Commission and Bush administration's version of events is, at best, shaky; at worst, a downright lie.

wheelchairman
05-16-2006, 11:34 AM
Ermdeviation. Personally, I would just say it's a bad strategy to fall into 9/11 conspiracy theories. It's simply not smart. Sure it might be correct that there is a conspiracy. But everyone will just think you are crazy. You might be a demolitions expert, but well that's really just not good enough.

Bad publicity. Besides, there is no logical reason for Bush to bomb the world trade center.

jacknife737
05-16-2006, 11:39 AM
So you basically re-worded what you found on either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

or some other conspiracy webpage.

I'm not saying the the commission was perfect and i'm not dismissing all of what you have posted, but if anyone thinks the U.S. government, and the U.S. president had over three thousand of its own citizens murdered you need to have your head examined

ermdevi@tion
05-16-2006, 11:47 AM
Ermdeviation. Personally, I would just say it's a bad strategy to fall into 9/11 conspiracy theories. It's simply not smart. Sure it might be correct that there is a conspiracy. But everyone will just think you are crazy. You might be a demolitions expert, but well that's really just not good enough.

Alas, I know - and crazy I might be. But when I am presented with verifiable evidence, whether it seems crazy or not, then it is always a duty to acknowledge the value of that evidence.

But yes, I do agree - infact, any conspiracy theory is dangerous territory.

And jacknife - yes, that is where some of my points come from. Also from the research documents on collapse time and the physics involved. As I said, I have gathered what I know from secondary sources.

As for governments murdering their own citizens...why is that so crazy to you? It has happened for the entire stretch of human history where an organised state has existed...

And again, I reiterate - on such an issue, I don't think we could ever say for sure the cause of 9/11, nor detail the exact events that happened.

Little_Miss_1565
05-16-2006, 12:00 PM
I'd also caution not to disregard something just because you call it a "conspiracy theory"--if it points out where something just isn't quite right, that's another category.

And I'm also curious why erm hasn't acknowledge that a former Bush associate has gone public with accusations that 9/11 was an inside job. It's painful and sad to think that the government of your country could be responsible for something unfathomably terrible, but that's not a reason to think that it's beyond the realm of possibility.

ermdevi@tion
05-16-2006, 12:05 PM
And I'm also curious why erm hasn't acknowledge that a former Bush associate has gone public with accusations that 9/11 was an inside job.

Hmmm, I'd never heard that before...was it well broadcast? Might be that the media in the UK were simply not interested. Though I would perhaps have expected the BBC to report something like that.

Little_Miss_1565
05-16-2006, 06:04 PM
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm

jacknife737
05-16-2006, 08:37 PM
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/index.html#demolition

A site that criticizes Mr. Reynolds 9/11 beliefs.

Also a new video has been released showing the plane crash into the pentagon on 9/11. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html

Edit: heres a link for the actual video ^ http://www.break.com/index/911pentagon.html

Little_Miss_1565
05-17-2006, 04:21 AM
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/index.html#demolition

A site that criticizes Mr. Reynolds 9/11 beliefs.

Also a new video has been released showing the plane crash into the pentagon on 9/11. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html

Edit: heres a link for the actual video ^ http://www.break.com/index/911pentagon.html

Hmm, ,good thing those links didn't address accusations from the inside that these thigns were true.

Andy
05-17-2006, 06:01 AM
There are few political agendas that irritate me more than conspiracy theories.

sk8ter-hater
08-17-2006, 07:52 PM
I saw the video a few days ago, a 1 and a half hour long one. At the end it said it was about money. I find that ridiculous.

opivy21
08-17-2006, 08:17 PM
I watched that video some time ago and thought that there really could be a huge conspiracy and whatnot, as stupid as it sounds. Then I saw this (http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html) website that completely shuts down the conspiracy.