We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 2876 comments are related to the topic:
9/11 was it a conspiracy?
9/11 was it a conspiracy?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 2,876
|
By:
The Islamists must be SEETHING. They score the goal of the season and it's put down as an own goal.
|
|
By:
Im still determined that it was Shredder, Krang and the rest of the Foot Soldiers who did it, they had a steel melting factory under the towers so that Shredder's claws could be kept sharp. The turtles will sort it all out, and we can all be happy together again.
It wasn't a plane, it was Richard Branson, and it was a missile that hit the Pentagon because Fatima Whitbread was launching Javelins again and it went slightly astray and caught a prevailing trans-atlantic wind, that's what I've been led to believe anyway. |
|
By:
Sparky, I think some suggest that in the model that 911 was an inside job (dressed up as an OSB job), then a self-inflicted wound would be a very good strategy to deflect suspicion away from the real perpetrators who some suspect are within the US defence-intelligence elite (hence the Pentagon attack). That the plane apparently performed a difficult manoeuvre in order to strike the least populated and most heavily fortified part of the building (hence reducing the risk of Pentagon deaths) is viewed as circumstantial supporting evidence for this supposed complicity.
|
|
By:
Well, Clockwork comes on the scene and descends into personal abuse.
Id rather debate evidence, as opposed to unsupported supposition. I'm off |
|
By:
It's like watching a dog chase its tail.
|
|
By:
As long as they don,t sit by you on a bus.....or make eye contact with you while they,re walking...
|
|
By:
'
|
|
By:
inatimate1 . Classic.
 |
|
By:
Gene Hackman Joined: 07 Feb 02
Replies: 1624 06 Aug 10 19:16 Sunset The fact that you keep quoting eyewitnesses as evidence does your case no good at all.Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable - This is true. Although it doesn't stop them being admitted in a court of law, so you can't throw the baby out with the bath water. who was it that said he saw De Menezes with explosives strapped to him? - and in this case there were hugely conflicting reports from the eyewitnesses. Incorrect.Name the eyewitnesses that saw a missile hit the Pentagon? There are 80+ that saw a plane hit it. Regarding the cctv footage/lack thereof: No,I'm not an expert on such matters and I'd like to bet that you aren't either. The internet is full of various clips of cctv footage capturing all kinds of events from all over the world.I would have thought that the equipment used to protect the Pentagon would be a bit more sophisticated than the stuff they use on your High St,and would capture the image of a plane from scores of different angles -side on,head on,from behind,yet we have not been shown any convincing footage. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The flightpath of the plane would have passed hundreds of cctv cameras on its journey to the pentagon - remember it was clipping lamposts on it's approach,it being so low to the ground,yet not one of those cctv cameras outside garages,shops,and businesses captured anything! Denial? See above. |
|
By:
Clockwork 06 Aug 10 23:04
An impressive list of idiots on this thread... Unfortunately Clocky, as soon as you start insulting people you lose all credibility, as I pointed out on page 2 of this thread. It's a very typical conspiracy theorist attitude which does you no credit. You're not an expert. You only have access to exactly the same information as everyone else. You're perfectly free to interpret that information any way you like, but just because others don't agree with your interpretation is not grounds for abuse. All you do is alienate people and detract from any tiny bit of substance which your argument may have. If you think you have irrefutable evidence/proof of something then by all means lay it out for all to see. No-one's interested in your interpretation of circumstantial evidence though. If you have some new definitive PROOF of wrongdoing that hasn't already been debunked by people who do actually know what they're talking about then I'm sure you'll find a willing audience. |
|
By:
lol good to see Clocky's keeping to his word!
Slarty, but HOW would that be circumstantial evidence supporting that claim? I can't see how it supports it in any way. If the US goverment wanted to stage an attack on American icons whilst minimalising loss of life there are any number of other, unmanned targets. Or, of course, the could just have the 'attacks' fail. Actualy evidence would be leaked memo's, conspirators coming out etc, of which there's been a complete lack. |
|
By:
Sunset
These 80+ witnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon. It doesn't seem very many,considering there were "hundreds if not thousands" of potential witnesses does it? I'm sure that any government worth it's salt could quickly find any number of "witnesses" to testify that they saw whatever they are instructed to see. Jobs,careers,reputations and personal security have been,and always will be, convincing incentives. |
|
By:
Sunset
These 80+ witnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon. It doesn't seem very many,considering there were "hundreds if not thousands" of potential witnesses does it? I'm sure that any government worth it's salt could quickly find any number of "witnesses" to testify that they saw whatever they are instructed to see. Jobs,careers,reputations and personal security have been,and always will be, convincing incentives. I am new to this thread! I assume you are saying a plane did not hit the Pentagon. So what did? A missile? Can you explain why go to the trouble to get 2 planes to hit the twin towers, but decide to send a missile into the Pentagon? Also what happened to the people on that flight, that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon? |
|
By:
I think you'll find they also believe that NO aeroplanes crashed into either of the twin towers.
|
|
By:
I actually thought I was debating with informed, reasonable people. It turned out that none of them had even the slightest inkling of what went on that day
Not a shred, not a WHIFF, not the MEREST hint of irony Clocky was, at least, right about the OP, but alas he was looking at the wrong suspects ... again! |
|
By:
Gene - I admire your mettle, I gave up with this lot a long time ago. Of course all of the witnesses were planted operatives. Who can forget Mike Walters' hilarious account of the wings folding in before the plane melted through the bomb proof wall! So bad was his scripted evidence, he had to justify himself on Primetime TV because no one believed him!! These "eyewitnesses" has been disseminated by the REAL truth sites of which there are very few left. Gene - if you are not already, get yourself familiar with Steven warren's work.
What I would quite like to do on here is post a series of questions for the OCT (official conspiracy theorists) to answer. The problem is they never answer a question posed, but reply with their own questions, ignoring mine completely. [;)] Sparky - "If the US goverment wanted to stage an attack on American icons whilst minimalising loss of life there are any number of other, unmanned targets." You almost nailed it there. |
|
By:
And yet you're still here!
|
|
By:
I think you'll find they also believe that NO aeroplanes crashed into either of the twin towers.
Can anyone explain what happened if it did not involve any planes or hijackers? Where are those planes, passengers, aircrew, hijackers? |
|
By:
Gene Hackman Joined: 07 Feb 02
Replies: 1625 07 Aug 10 13:45 Sunset These 80+ witnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon. It doesn't seem very many,considering there were "hundreds if not thousands" So you say. Prove it? of potential witnesses does it? I'm sure that any government worth it's salt could quickly find any number of "witnesses" to testify that they saw whatever they are instructed to see. Oh right the witnesses are lying. And your evidence for this is what? Because it doesn't fit your theory. If 80+ witnesses said they saw a missile you wouldn't have a problem with it.Jobs,careers,reputations and personal security have been,and always will be, convincing incentives. Again you don't have a scrap of evidence that any of these witnesses have been threatened or bullied into lying about what they saw. |
|
By:
The planes were all secretly diverted to a US Airbase, and the passengers and crew were all put on one plane which was then blasted out of the sky by a USAF fighter plane over Pennsylvania.
...apparently. |
|
By:
What I would quite like to do on here is post a series of questions for the OCT (official conspiracy theorists) to answer.
And I would bother to answer them if they were your questions and I thought you'd take a measured view. Rather like the dismantling of your 'assassinated lawyer' assertion, once you move off material you've copied from conspiracy sites (which is itself the means by which much of what is now presented as fact was invented - I'll leave the puerile acronyms for another day!) it is not difficult to de-construct the story. You will always return to two problems, Clocky; the first, and most obvious, is were there any cogent evidence, it would have formed the basis of some action where that evidence is tested and second, the logistical problem. On the latter point, had you any experience of the intelligence services (or even the army) mounting even the simplest operation, you'd know that breweries and piss-ups are well out of reach! |
|
By:
Probably not a conspiracy but also very unlikely that the public know anywhere near the whole truth. Particularly as Bush and Blair are involved.
|
|
By:
man of many moods Joined: 06 Mar 02
Replies: 6046 07 Aug 10 16:54 The planes were all secretly diverted to a US Airbase, and the passengers and crew were all put on one plane which was then blasted out of the sky by a USAF fighter plane over Pennsylvania. ...apparently More like abducted by aliens and sent to live on the moon. |
|
By:
Of course all of the witnesses were planted operatives.
What is your evidence for this bold assertion? |
|
By:
These "eyewitnesses" has been disseminated by the REAL truth sites of which there are very few left.
What is your source for this? Please name these sites so we can check the evidence for ourselves. |
|
By:
I'll try and explain, sparky, though tbh I wonder whether you're being deliberately obtuse sometimes. If you were a terrorist would you want to hit the least populated most fortified area of the building or the most populated least fortified area to maximise your impact? The claimed fact that the plane appeared to go out of its way to hit the former part causes suspicion among those who wonder whether 911 was either allowed to happen (the so-called Let It Happen on Purpose, or LIHOP, scenario) or made to happen (the MIHOP scenario).
As to minimising casualties, I imagine the thinking is that if those behind the attacks were actually inside the US military elite (perhaps even inside the offices of the Pentagon itself) they may have been motivated by self-interest or loyalty to minimise the impacts. Of course, this is all hypothetical. |
|
By:
Bit hard to put myself in the twisted head of a terrorist. Their objectives were evidently places more than people so I doubt they were that bothered. They seem to show neither compassion nor hatred towards civilians.
The idea that the US military took the decision to kill loads of their own people and THEN tried to minimise the number out of loyalty is laughable. |
|
By:
The World is indeed flat.
|
|
By:
I seem to have failed to help you understand again, sparky. Apologies, I did my best.
|
|
By:
Poor slarty, dedicated his whole life to 9/11. Hundreds and hundreds of websites, thousands and thousands of posts.
Obsession doesn't begin to describe it. Get help, fella. |
|
By:
Hellisio
I don't think a 757 passenger jet flew into the front door of the Pentagon. That's all I'm saying. I haven't mentioned anything about the plane and the passengers or what happened to it,and I'm not a complete conspiracy theorist on this matter either. I do lean towards skepticism regarding the official version,but have yet to encounter anything on here,or on the anti-ct sites that have convinced me otherwise. I am convinced though of 3 things concerning 9/11 - after reading/watching/listening to everything I can - and that is 1.that a large passenger jet carrying passengers did not hit the Pentagon. 2.that no passenger plane crashed into that field in Pennsylvania. 3.that WTC7 came down under a controlled explosion. You've read about Operation Northwoods haven't you? They were thinking of this type of thing nearly 50 years ago. |
|
By:
We HAVE heard of Operation Northwoods, such is the level of openness in government these days.
|
|
By:
Sunset Cristo 07 Aug 10 17:25
More like abducted by aliens and sent to live on the moon. Nah! The aliens that already live there would never allow that. |
|
By:
Gene Hackman Joined: 07 Feb 02
Replies: 1626 07 Aug 10 18:18 Hellisio I don't think a 757 passenger jet flew into the front door of the Pentagon. That's all I'm saying. I haven't mentioned anything about the plane and the passengers or what happened to it,and I'm not a complete conspiracy theorist on this matter either. Yes it has been noted that you keep dodging the question regarding what happened to the passengers. This is a big problem for your conspiracy theory. No wonder you keep ignoring it. I do lean towards skepticism regarding the official version,but have yet to encounter anything on here,or on the anti-ct sites that have convinced me otherwise. I am convinced though of 3 things concerning 9/11 - after reading/watching/listening to everything I can - and that is 1.that a large passenger jet carrying passengers did not hit the Pentagon. Why not? The only credible evidence that even comes close to suggesting this is the size of the hole in the Pentagon and that is hard the estimate based on the photos. So please I ask you again to provide your evidence that convinces you that that a large passenger jet carrying passengers did not hit the Pentagon? 2.that no passenger plane crashed into that field in Pennsylvania. Please provide your evidence for the assertion? 3.that WTC7 came down under a controlled explosion. Please provide your evidence? You've read about Operation Northwoods haven't you? They were thinking of this type of thing nearly 50 years ago. I don't doubt that the US government could commit acts of terrorism and then blame it on others, but the evidence that they did it does not exist from the research I've done. |
|
By:
Here's a video showing wtc7 collapse alongside a controlled demolition for comparison,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo It's not evidence as such, just looks very similar don't you think? |
|
By:
It's not evidence as such
And therein lies the rub |
|
By:
Cobblaz, the two collapses are practically identical.
Do you believe that WTC7 was brought down by a fire? Do you believe that this fire undermined no less than 81 support columns simultaneously? |
|
By:
Why would it have to undermine no less than 81 support columns simultaneously?
|
|
By:
You said it's not eveidence as such. I'm agreeing with that statement.
|
|
By:
I'd go further and say it's not evidence at all
|