9/11: A Conspiracy Theory

Submitted by: fancylad 5 years ago in

Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes.
There are 68 comments:
Male 621
5Cats: "NOT ONE OF WHICH has been seen by the public!"

Which just goes to show what a complete nit-wit you are.

Most of the videos were TAKEN by the public!

And the one you`re talking about wasn`t "leaked", it was officially released! And yes, it WAS the whole damn thing. It wasn`t "edited", those few frames really were all that there was.

Security video cameras of that sort only take fames every so often, so that they can store images across a longer period of time.

As for your gas station camera where is your evidence for any of your claims regarding it? Did it even exist in 2001? Facing that direction? Is it impossible for something to have obscured its view?

And again, what you`re doing is ignoring the tons of the evidence that there indeed was a plane and failing to explain what happened to the plane if you were right.

Occam would be truly saddened by your conspiracy mongering.
0
Reply
Male 40,326
[quote]A FOIA request to the FBI revealed that 85 videos were collected for the Pentagon attack investigation.[/quote]
NOT ONE OF WHICH has been seen by the public!
Oh, except the "leaked" one, leaked twice, which STILL edited out the part which showed the aircraft involved...

Oh that`s highly believable!

Dan Rather: JFK`s head moved forward, to the right. (After watching the Zapruder film, in secret, at the FBI HQ, long before it was shown to the public).

The view from the Gas Station`s security cam shows the Pentagon exactly where it was struck. It is physically impossible for that cam to NOT have recorded the aircraft. If a "slow" cam can show 13+ frames from the side, the Station cam would show 2X or 3X times that many, in colour, clear as day, no trees or anything obscuring the view, PERIOD. In higher resolution to boot.
0
Reply
Male 621
5Cats: "There are at least 2 crystal clear videos of the Pentagon attack, this is not even disputed! OK? It`s not "paranoid delusion" it`s verified fact."

No, it`s not a "verified fact", it`s complete BS.

A FOIA request to the FBI revealed that 85 videos were collected for the Pentagon attack investigation. 56 showed nothing relevant, 29 only showed the Pentagon, 12 showed the Pentagon post-crash, and only 1, the Pentagon`s released security camera footage, showed the actual crash.

For details, see:
911Myths

Plenty of other evidence besides that too.

So, where`s your evidence for something else?
0
Reply
Male 621
5Cats: "The OS is that these supersonic fighters didn`t catch up to the sub-sonic aircraft in time. Since the AFB near DC is mere minutes away from the Pentagon, I personally find that very difficult to believe..."

The only bases on alert at the time were the Otis AFB in Cape Cod, MA. and the Langley AFB in Hampton, VA. The two planes at Otis were scrambled to go after the plane in NY only 9 minutes before it crashed. How exactly did you expect them to catch up that quickly when they were over 200 miles away?

Due to the confusion, the two jets flew over NY and were given no other orders until several minutes AFTER all four hijacked planes were already down.

The AFB near DC wasn`t on alert at the time, so it would have taken a lot more time for them to get anything in the air, let alone find and catch up to it.

Yup, things sure seem fishy when your "facts" are completely wrong.
0
Reply
Male 40,326
@Link_Hiei: LOLO! Yeah, it takes a long time to `splain stuff, eh?
0
Reply
Male 5,189
Wonder who is going to read all that LOOOL.
0
Reply
Male 40,326
...a few more frames added, but STILL no `middle frames`.
BUT!
There are at least 2 crystal clear videos of the Pentagon attack, this is not even disputed! OK? It`s not "paranoid delusion" it`s verified fact.
Both were siezed by the SS (or whomever) and remain un-viewed by the public, OR the "inquirey".
EXACTLY like Zapruder was!

@Modwain & @HiEv: There were jets scrambled, and "shoot down" orders were the default. Some disagreement over the issuing of those orders, but it was supposed to be SOP, eh?

The OS is that these supersonic fighters didn`t catch up to the sub-sonic aircraft in time.

Since the AFB near DC is mere minutes away from the Pentagon, I personally find that very difficult to believe...

Of the 5 sides of the Pentagon: the "aircraft" hit the side which was:
least populated
most reinforced.
Amazing coincidence, eh?
0
Reply
Male 40,326
[quote]Yes and the missle happened to carry plane debris!![/quote]
@McGovern: the two "classified" videos would clearly show how those "specks" of debris got there... but we`re not allowed to see them!
Some of the "aircraft" debris pictured inside the building itself does NOT match any parts of a 757.

@earplay:Aare you nuts? In both "attacks" the US ships involved fired over 200 times, it`s just a fact! NOW they say the second attack didn`t actually happen, it was "ghost images" on the radar. Fine.
BUT for 3 decades the US maintained ABSOLUTELY that there were 2 attacks, OUTSIDE of North Vietnam`s territory (a lie) PERIOD!
Get it?
[quote]Well, DUH! The camera didn`t take pictures very often,[/quote]
Lolz! You really enjoy the kool-aid @HiEv? The "leaked" frames origionally omitted the "middle part" which WOULD HAVE shown the aircraft. Later? ANOTHER "leak" with a few more fr
0
Reply
Male 40,326
The tail of a big aircraft is "5 directions strong" it`s REALLY built!
THAT is why lots of avionics is packed back there.
THAT is why it`s the best place to survive a crash, the very back! (and right by the wing-roots.)
The stresses on the tail section demand it be able to withstand stresses from front, top, bottom, left, and right. Not back, strangely. I recall the story of a 747 which bumped into a hanger while being pushed backwards, colossal damage!
BUT! A 747 which hit a rocky mountain at 500+ mph? The tail section survived! Nothing else! The rest of the plane was a "splat" with the tail section sticking out.
SO: how on earth did the entire tail section of a 757 "vanish" upon hitting the Pentagon?
Keep in mind that the fuselage (MUCH "softer") penetrated not ONE, but TWO layers of fortification!
And the engines didn`t make a dent.
It`s simply impossible.
Sorry.
0
Reply
Male 40,326
[quote]The Pentagon attack is so obviously a cruise missile.[/quote]
@rickwhite: Not a "cruise missile but a "predator drone" with a shaped charge bomb inside.
In 2001 those drones were rare, but guess where many were based & being tested? Washinton AFB! Or whatever the name of the AFB closest to DC is called...
Anyhow: you shoot down the plane over the Atlantic, panic and decide to say the plane hit the Pentagon, then cram a bomb into a drone and "presto!" mission accomplished!
Much of the wreckage PHOTOS don`t match parts of the 757, but DO match the parts of a drone...
Witnesses saying no windows, no markings too...
Woosh.
Film of the attack never to be seen, just like the Zapruder film...
Laws of physics ignored as the "aircraft" hits the building...
And: the FIRST THING I SAID while watching the coverage of the Pentagon attack on live TV was: where`s the tail section?
con`t
0
Reply
Male 40,326
[quote]There were eye witnesses that saw the plane come in.[/quote]
YES! @markust I was watching that day: one said it was a "4 engine jet" another said it "had no windows" and another said it went "woosh" over his head. & etc.
A passenger jet with it`s engines blasting at 500 MPH does NOT "go woosh" it`s LOUD!
Yuppers! The eyewitnesses are 100%... um... next!

[quote]They found the nose cone.[/quote]
Interesting: that "nose cone" blasted through TWO thick, reinforced concrete walls and they recovered it?
But the two 6 ton engines didn`t make a scratch and vanished?
AND the OS says the aircraft turned to molten plasma (lookitup!) BUT human bodies were `everywhere` says eyewitnesses, NOT "some DNA" ok? Almost all of the passengers were `identified` afterwards?
Molten Plasma: destroys metal but not human bodies? Nope! Not buying it.
0
Reply
Male 621
Modwain: "knowing that some of the planes used at teh terrorist attack where missing for almost two hours, makes you wonder."

Just noticed that bit.

Actually, from the time the first plane was suspected to have been hijacked (8:38 AM) to the time the last plane went down (10:03 AM) only 95 minutes had passed. Furthermore, it was not immediately realized that more than one plane was hijacked.

The 9-11 report notes that procedures were not followed, and in fact, people often improvised along the way since they didn`t know what to do. (pg.31)

At 9:21 AM the North East Air Defense Sector (NEADS) got a notice from the FAA to scramble jets to go after the first hijacked plane (American 11), only 9 minutes before it crashed. They were still looking for it until 10:15 AM (after all of the other planes had already crashed), when they were first told it had gone down.

Bungled, yes, but explainable.
0
Reply
Male 621
@Modwain: The last hijacking in the US prior to the 9/11/`01 hijacking was in 1993. Due to this 8 year gap, the policy was not well known.

Furthermore, the command structure of the FAA in 2001 was not set up for such rapid reporting. Traffic control centers would report such incidents to Control Centers, which would report up to the Command Centers, which would then have to make the decision to contact NORAD.

Furthermore, the loss of radio and transponder communications were not uncommon, though both simultaneously were rare. Several minutes would be spent trying to regain communication first.

Furthermore, NORAD was set up to expect EXTERNAL attacks, not multiple internal ones. On 9/11/`01 there were only 7 sites in the US set up for such intercepts.

Finally, hijackers were expected to take the planes, and not crash them, giving more time for intercept.

See 9-11 Report, pgs. 14-46.
0
Reply
Male 334
only one thing always amazed me. Since the lockerbee thingy, where a commercial plane got hijacked and it crashed in lockerbie that long long time ago, there is a standing order in all nato countries. if a large commercial plain goes missing and stays missing for more then 15 minutes, jet are scrambled to find them. In all fairness, this would not have prevented anything, but knowing that some of the planes used at teh terrorist attack where missing for almost two hours, makes you wonder. just that..
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@HiEv

Doez was super top secret missles line wid plane partz!!!
0
Reply
Male 621
rickwhite: "There is absolutely NO sign of a plane. At all. Not even the tail."

Well, DUH! The camera didn`t take pictures very often, the plane was moving pretty fast, and it disintegrated on impact! Ever hear the phrase "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

Furthermore, radar tracked the plane heading towards the Pentagon, eye witnesses saw it hit the Pentagon, and debris from the plane was found all over the area where it hit. There`s literally tons of other evidence that it did indeed hit the Pentagon.

And if we assume that the plane didn`t hit the Pentagon, where the heck did it and all of the passengers (which were also found at the Pentagon) go?!?

You guys just anomaly hunt, but you can`t assume you personally saying "I don`t get it" = "conspiracy". If you don`t understand how that`s possible, when experts do, that`s your failing, not a failing of the evidence.
0
Reply
Male 621
rickwhite: "Let`s ignore `phone calls` which are impossible from aircraft by cellphone."

No, let`s NOT ignore that what you just said was complete BS.

First of all, only two of the calls from Flight 93 were from cell phones, and both were made late in the flight when the plane was at low altitude and those calls were ENTIRELY possible. Also, the rest were made from the in-flight phone system, which was made to work at altitude.

Furthermore, you`re implying these calls were faked? HOW?!? WHY!?! It`s no wonder you brush over this, because any attempt to explain it as something else becomes absurd.

"`Eye Witnesses` which are totally fabricated."

Yeah, why deal with actual claims when you can just imply things you don`t have to back up.

Utter twaddle.
0
Reply
Male 621
5Cats: "For decades the US Gov`t maintained that there were TWO prolonged attacks, ok? No if`s ands or buts!"

And if you read what I actually wrote, you will note that I didn`t deny that. Yes, the US government played up the false 2nd "attack" before the story had been verified, and then remained silent when the reports showed that it was likely an error.

However, my point was that you said, "the US FAKED an attack", and that is a statement which there is NO evidence for.

Draculya: "On dialysis in a cave complex in Afghanistan? He has better health care than middle-class Americans!"

Actually, the dialysis claim is at best questionable, but it`s more likely a myth:
Washington Times - Osama debunks a myth
0
Reply
Male 121
Here I go again. @HiEv: For decades the US Gov`t maintained that there were TWO prolonged attacks, ok? No if`s ands or buts! 3 motorboats attack a modern warship 20X their size (and 4 fighter/bombers!) and NOT get destroyed? Pffft!"
How about because the guns were not loaded and the crew was not a battle stations? Okay, I really am done now. Sigh!
0
Reply
Male 121
And even if cell phone calls were impossible to make from a plane, cell phones on the ground can receive calls from planes, also known as cell phone calls. Why do I waste my time...?
0
Reply
Male 121
See, the thing is, no one saw planes fly into those towers and no one on board the planes used their cell phones to say what was going on and all the conspiracy theorists are well trained in every kind of forensic evidence so why not buy into this video?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@rickwhite

Yes and the missle happened to carry plane debris!!
0
Reply
Male 4,854
@rickwhite Yes, let`s ignore the phone calls from the plane and the eye witnesses. WTF? None of the witnesses described a missile they all describe seeing a plane. I`m not going to waste anymore time on you guys` retardedness. I know that`s not a real word but it fits.
0
Reply
Male 151
@ Markust123
Seriously?
The Pentagon attack is so obviously a cruise missile.

Let`s ignore "phone calls" which are impossible from aircraft by cellphone. "Eye Witnesses" which are totally fabricated. And deal with the images released by the pentagon, themselves.

Check out this link: youtu.be/tL8yc0gwAyI
Or go to Wiki & check the "official" 3 frames of fireball.

There is absolutely NO sign of a plane. At all. Not even the tail.
It`s a Boeing 757. The Tail is 44ft tall! The Plane is 155ft long!
The wingspan is 124ft. EACH engine is 7,000lbs and 7ft in diameter!

But there`s a fireball.
10 frames of a fireball/explosion, in fact.

But NOT ONE image of fuselage, tail, engine, wing, breaking apart from slamming into the side of a concrete building.

So...
"Eye-witnesses" or IMAGES & common sense.

Sorry. No way this was a plane.
Feel free t
0
Reply
Male 4,854
"@markust: The Pentagon attack has not been "explained" by anyone. 2 videos (at least) exist of that day, both were grabbed by the gov`t and never once shown to anyone. The aircraft blasted holes through 2 reinforced concrete walls, but the two 6-ton engines didn`t even break a window? Make a dent? Scratch the paint? Bzzzt! Impossible."

Are you off your meds? Many passengers on the plane made phone calls that they had been hijacked. There were eye witnesses that saw the plane come in. There was debris from Flight 77 scattered all around. They found the black boxes. They found the nose cone. They also found some remains of passengers that DNA concluded was them. Do you purposely not view or read explanations from experts in the field that show that your claims are false?

Seeing that you are a Truther does explain why you are also a Birther. Try a little logic. It goes a long way.
0
Reply
Male 15,186
On dialysis in a cave complex in Afghanistan? He has better health care than middle-class Americans!
0
Reply
Male 486
The way this guy pronounces the word "records" undermines his credibility.
0
Reply
Male 406

0
Reply
Male 39,572
0
Reply
Female 4,359
omg you bunch of dumbasses, I`m not even going to bother to go on about how asleep you all are if you are still accepting the s hit you`re being fed after 11 years. Every bit of which is highly explained to anyone with even the minutest bit of common sense. Enjoy your prison state :) I give up.
0
Reply
Male 13,630
VirtualParty
Few fighter jets!!
Its feckin America.
They have more fighter jets than fast food outlets dude
0
Reply
Male 40,326
[quote]But I feel like I should mention that at that time America had very few fighter jets.[/quote]
@VirtualParty: Bad troll! BAD!

@Andrew155: Excellent point!
Just because we believe the "official report" is less than 100% accurate or truthful DOES NOT MEAN we think Martians did it! Ok?
Yet 65% of registered Democrats think Bush was responsible... in a 2011 poll...

The 9/11 comission specificly refused to address ANY aspect of the Pentagon attack, iirc...
0
Reply
Male 40,326
[quote] Stop distorting the facts.[/quote]
@HiEv: For decades the US Gov`t maintained that there were TWO prolonged attacks, ok? No if`s ands or buts! 3 motorboats attack a modern warship 20X their size (and 4 fighter/bombers!) and NOT get destroyed? Pffft!
The "conspiracy" part is insisting that there were TWO attacks, both were inside N.Vietnam`s territory btw, and smacking down anyone who claimed the second attack was a mistaken event, for decades!

Like the Maine and the Lusitania and COUNTLESS events before and since, the US (and plenty of other) Gov`t LIED to it`s own people.
THAT my friend is a conspiracy. A whole PILE of them! How many need to be proven or admitted before you question "official accounts"?

I repeat: The Towers has been explained to my satisfaction, the other two planes? Not at all.
The buildup and aftermath? Even less so.
It`s JFK`s head all over again!
0
Reply
Male 40,326
[quote]...or use disintegration rays. Hey! Maybe it was the Klingons![/quote]
TSK! @Angilion! The Klingons had "disruptor bolts" please get your geek-speak correct, eh?

[quote]Is it that nobody could ever think of a means of attack that had already appeared in several books before then?[/quote]
AND a popular TV series! Ok, it was "The Lone Gunmen" but it had a remote-piloted passenger aircraft flying into the Twin Towers! BEFORE 9/11 obviously!

@markust: The Pentagon attack has not been "explained" by anyone. 2 videos (at least) exist of that day, both were grabbed by the gov`t and never once shown to anyone. The aircraft blasted holes through 2 reinforced concrete walls, but the two 6-ton engines didn`t even break a window? Make a dent? Scratch the paint?
Bzzzt! Impossible.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
You know guys, it`s possible for the official government report to not be 100% accurate and it not be some overly-convoluted plot with explosive and what not. And I can guarantee that`s the case, because the official report probably has, at the very least, one falsehood.

0
Reply
Male 621
Here`s the link to the video that djwajda refers to:
They Fell For My Hoax 9/11 Video

90% amusing; 10% depressing how many people took it seriously, and how many probably still take it seriously to this day.
0
Reply
Male 883
Go to youtube and look up "They Fell For My 9/11 Hoax Video"

apparently all it requires to fake it is some adobe software.
0
Reply
Male 787
There`s a lot I can say about this video. But I feel like I should mention that at that time America had very few fighter jets. Only a handful really. That was because one could patrol such vast distances in such a short time.
0
Reply
Male 621
In the end, this is just an attempt to attack the official, backed up by a ton of evidence, story, and then claim that the only alternative is a conspiracy.

Sorry, but no.

Even if you totally dismantled the official story, that in itself is not evidence for any other story.

You don`t get to attack the official story and then walk away claiming victory for your own story. You have to actually provide evidence supporting your story that explains ALL of the facts (not just your cherry picked "anomalies") BETTER than the official story.

This is something that 9-11 conspiracy theorists consistently fail to do.

If you think the official story is a failure, your story fails even harder due to the absurdity of how difficult it would be to pull off in complete secrecy. This is multiplied by the thousands of people required to be involved in any alternate scenario I`ve ever heard.

Answer that.
0
Reply
Male 3,908
@Angilion - Teleportation is a good one and it`s definitely a possibility.

When I first heard people start talking about a controlled demolition I was surprised that they could actually be that stoopid. I work in construction, not demolition, but I think it`s safe to say that the amount of time and manpower it would take to rig buildings that big with explosives would be astronomical. Doing that in an office building that`s still in use, without someone noticing, is impossible. Impossible unless they used those little memory erasing devices from the MIB films. Even then they`d have to zap every single person who works there at regular intervals throughout the day and as they leave at the end of the work day.

So, in conclusion...

0
Reply
Male 1,442
@antagonizer: I could see the Patriot Act as a possibility. It does greatly benefit the goverment to have a lawful way to break constitution.

But do the pros outweigh the cons? This wouldn`t be a spur of the moment thing, so they would of worked out the extreme consequences resulting from it. Such as nearly bankrupting the country in dept and causing international instability.

With the chance of the Patriot Act still failing to be accepted after all that, it all together seems way too unstable and risky for them to take.

Most people don`t get powerful and super wealthy by taking such extreme (most likely unprofitable) risks.
0
Reply
Male 621
@antagonizer: While I agree that the so-called "Patriot Act" would never have passed if not for 9-11, that`s a far cry from evidence that 9-11 was done in order to pass it. All of the evidence supports the idea that 9-11 caused the Patriot Act, not the other way around.

@rickwhite: "Common sense" isn`t truth. Common sense says that the Earth is flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth, heavy objects fall faster than light objects, and gets the Monty Hall problem consistently wrong. Science is far more reliable than "common sense", so I`d focus on real evidence instead.

@5Cats: The US did NOT fake the Gulf of Tonkin attack. One attack was real, the second was an error. There was confusion about the incident, but they went ahead anyways. Not a good idea, but certainly not a situation created intentionally. Stop distorting the facts.

Faking 9-11 would require too many for not one to come forward.
0
Reply
Male 621
Wow. This guy really embraces the "Ignorance is strength" motto he ends on.

That video was a complete load of anomaly hunting and coincidence inflation, with a dash of lies and innuendo, that blatantly ignores the facts that explain most of the stuff he complained about.

Furthermore, the dude doesn`t put forth one single shred of evidence for what he thinks actually happened, despite chiding others for same.

We in fact have recorded testimony from eye witnesses who were on the planes that the hijackers did indeed take over the planes. Yet he pretends this couldn`t have happened.

We have numerous sources for who the attackers were, yet he pretends it comes from a passport found by the wreckage.

He says the 9-11 Commission Report "failed to mention the existence of WTC 7", but I count 5 mentions in a report that was on the attack, not the collateral damage.

Total fear mongering nonsense.
0
Reply
Male 508
@Evil_Eye Two words; Patriot Act. You`re country would have never allowed that piece of legislation pass without some catastrophe. They tried once when the Oklahoma city bombing happened, and people weren`t terrified enough. 911 had just enough impact to let them scare you into giving up your rights. motive, means and opportunity.
0
Reply
Male 1,442
@TheGuySmiley: Much less risky and costly ways to get power. Also what power? They increased security but they still get down trodden on stuff they try to pass... look at how well SOPA went. Or do you mean the power to go to war? Because like I said, they could and have found other reasons to go to war before and since.

And if you read all my post, then you would see I mentioned the profit in all this is so negative the whole world has gone down the economic toilet ever since then. Where is the $$$?

Still waiting on a reason here!
0
Reply
Male 2,988
9/11 was a planned attack. At what you ask? Easy. There was knowledge that Patient 0 was in one of 3 locations: one of the two twin tower or the pentagon. All 3 were attacked to destroy Patient 0 before it could spread to the masses. The 4th plane was a back up in case the other 3 missed or whatever. These actions effectively delayed the zombie outbreak by about 11 years or so. Properly pushing Z-Day back to around Dec 2012 as the Mayans predicted. And that`s the true story of 9/11 kiddos.
0
Reply
Male 1,243
Evil_Eye: More power, and more $. Greed is ugly, and yes, it is that debase.
0
Reply
Male 4,854
The History channel, Discovery Channel and The Learning Channel have all presented incredibly detailed shows with experts in each field that disprove every one of the Truther`s batsh*t crazy ideas. They show the Truther presenting their ridiculous claim and then they systematically prove them wrong. It is quit easy because none of the claims hold up in light.
0
Reply
Male 1,442
Ok, here is some questions I have been pondering over with all this... what would the goverment GAIN from doing it that would be worth the risk/cost?

It is not oil. The cost of doing all this, covering up, rebuilding the damages, increasing secruity, going to war, ect... would be nowhere near enough to make up for it. And unless they have hidden oil fields, then there isn`t much oil there compaired to other places anyway. Also, incase you haven`t noticed, your econamy has not improved since then.

It is not a excuse to go to war, they could of got that if they wanted it without doing something that big and risky.

It is not to find a guy who has information on them... since good old secret service did it when we wasn`t looking anyway. Plus Bush ended the team Obama restarted anyway.

No matter what excuse I can think of, I can`t think of one that gives them advantages thats worth it. Any takers?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Besides, what`s so hard to believe about the obvious, common sense explanation?

Is it that nobody would ever commit suicide in order to make a devastating attack on people they hate passionately?

Is it that nobody could ever hijack a plane in 2001?

Is it that nobody could ever learn how to steer a plane in 2001?

Is it that nobody could ever think of a means of attack that had already appeared in several books before then?

Is it that nobody anywhere in 2001 wanted to attack the USA?



It`s not any of those, is it? None of you conspiracy "theorists" have any reasons why you think that the obvious answer isn`t believable, do you?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
whodat6484:

Your picture is particularly appropriate because the most common conspiracy claims require advanced alien technology to make them even possible, let alone plausible. For example, it would be necessary to teleport the alleged explosives into the buildings because it`s impossible to set up a controlled demolition of a large tower (or even a far smaller building) that`s in use without anyone noticing. Either teleport the explosives in or use disintegration rays.

Hey! Maybe it was the Klingons!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]There is so much common sense when it comes to this topic... it`s really disturbing how many people just accept what they are told.[/quote]

Oh, I agree.

People shouldn`t just accept what they are told by conspiracy "theorists". Sadly, many people do. Even more sadly, they call that thoughtless acceptance something like "asking questions" and hypocritically criticise anyone who doesn`t just accept what they are told for just accepting what they are told.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I can tell you everything you need to know about the 9/11 conspiracy "theories" in under 5 words:

Steaming pile of crap.
0
Reply
Male 3,908
It`s obvious that you`re ALL wrong...

0
Reply
Male 17,512
Isn`t this a repost?
0
Reply
Male 40,326
@TheLargeOne:
"If 9/11 was an inside job, why has no one that was in on the planning come out?"
Because they`d be killed.
Because MOST of the people involved were actual terrorists.
Becaue they`re highly trained to follow orders.
Because few, if any, would believe them, and then they`d be killed.
That`s a few reasons!
Consider The Gulf Of Tonkin where the US FAKED an attack and used it as an excuse to escalate the war in Vietnam. It`s admitted NOW, kinda, but for decades there were hundreds who remained silent. Any who spoke up were demonized, arrested or vanished...
Same for "The Maine"
Same for "The Lusitania"
Same for "Pearl Harbor"
and several modern "events" too...
0
Reply
Male 40,326
0:30 Ok, #1 there were a LOT more people involved, for well over ONE YEAR in the planning, training and implimentation, so what this says is just plain false.
0:45 #2 They drank, did drugs and got laid just before the attacks because they were GOING DIRECTLY TO HEAVEN! Duh! Someone obviously knows nothing about Islam...
1:00 #3 Ok, that`s true!

Ooo! It gets good after the initial mistakes, hooray!

@GuySmiley: EDIT: Ooops! I mis-read your post, it`s GREAT to see some de-bunking of the "Popular Mechanics" bull-crap!

Jessica Lynch Mentioned briefly near the end. Also: Lori Piestewa The story the Media told us was propoganda, which is "normal" eh?
0
Reply
Male 103
I`m all for asking questions about 9/11. What I`m against is people claiming so called "evidence" when they don`t have a shred of evidence. Also, I`m waiting for one person to legitimately answer my one question.

If 9/11 was an inside job, why has no one that was in on the planning come out? Why is it that of the several hundred people that it would have taken to plan and carry out the destruction of the WTC and Pentagon not come forward? We`re supposed to believe that there are hundreds of people that knew about this and they`re completely comfortable walking around every day knowing that they could have prevented thousands of deaths if they had just spoken up. No risk of death or imprisonment from anyone would keep my mouth shut if I were complicit in these acts. I would have spoken up before it had transpired or at the very least directly after the events.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
I have no idea what happened, but I do know that everything is not as it seems.
0
Reply
Male 2,220
and they say you dont know nowt about sarcasm on your side of the pond..
0
Reply
Male 1,243
rickwhite: YES!

FANCYLAD: YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

btw i do not eat my fancy lad cakes in fallout because of you, but i swear i will begin eating those cakes whenever i can if we don`t see 9/11 posts every day!!!

LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN!
0
Reply
Male 151
Fancylad, you should post a video about 9/11 every day. It should be discussed constantly. We should never let go of it... until we get the truth.

"Conspiracy Theorist" is a term used by the establishment to dismiss someone when they attract attention to something they want silenced.

There is so much common sense when it comes to this topic... it`s really disturbing how many people just accept what they are told.

You do not have to agree with the "conspiracy theorists" but EVERYONE should at least agree with asking questions.

If there is truly nothing to hide answers should flow freely.

The evidence is in plain sight.
It is so obvious it hurts.

I am NOT suggesting I know "who did it" but it is grotesquely obvious that the "official story" is a lie.

If you truly believe the "official story" you are a sucker... and you ain`t seen nothing yet with regards to the sh-
0
Reply
Male 1,243
Great, after you watch this, be sure to check out real videos of facts by real scientists with real evidence here, and here. Then take a look here to see the popular mechanics debunking of 9/11 evidence being debunked itself.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
- By unanswered i mean that someone clearly knows the answer, but for some reason they don`t want us to know.. I just think that`s a bit fishy..
0
Reply
Male 1,471
I`m with Jessie Ventura: I don`t know what happened, but why aren`t we allowed to ask questions? And why are there so many valid questions still unanswered?..
0
Reply
Male 406
I kinda enjoyed the tongue in cheek manner that this was done with.

I kinda do admit that some things are fishy, but its really unlikely that this will ever be fully understood by everyone ever. I`m putting it up there with JFK. You can go nuts figuring it out, or just say poo, I don`t know.
0
Reply
Male 4,854
Come on Fancylad didn`t we get enough of the conspiracy theorists insane blather yesterday?
0
Reply
Male 20,827
Link: 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory [Rate Link] - Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes.
0
Reply