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:
I'd point it out to anyone but you happened to respond directly to my first post on this thread hence saying it to you.
|
|
By:
Good work Clocky. But you missed the other 100 flaws in the official verdict
 COYI |
|
By:
Gene Hackman Joined: 07 Feb 02
Replies: 1646 13 Aug 10 13:14 It's quite apparent,and always has been to be honest,that the opposing sides on this matter will never meet anywhere even close to common ground. Imagine,though,that you are a complete agnostic I used to be. It makes no difference to me if it was a conspiracy or not.I'm just interested in the truth.I just go were ever the evidence leads. You have presented very little evidence that the official version is not to be believed. You won't even answer my questions. This is intellectually dishonest of you. and had never been on this or any other forum,but are aware of the official version of 9/11,but had no knowledge of any "conspiracy theories". A blank slate,as it were. This is what I think such a person would glean from this thread: Clockwork - seems to have done a lot of work,and appears to be very earnest in his deliberations. Are you talking the piss? What clocky has done has read a lot of conspiracy sites and checked his brain in at the door.Be skeptical yes, but apply it equal measure to the official version and the conspiracy sites. I don't know if any of the stuff he has written is right or not,but he makes some points that certainly makes you wonder what went on, Such as what? Any one that can seriously believe that those planes didn't crash into the Twin towers really needs to get a grip on reality. The second plane went in real time watched by millions of people on tv.This would be the greatest hoax of all time.I watched those videos again to check out what clocky was saying about the videos being faked and I still find them shocking nearly 10 years later, but I find it just as shocking that people like clocky can really believe that it didn't happen.Possible one or two of the videos was faked. What would that prove? It could be conspiracy theorist that had faked them. and I'll look at this 9/11 thing with more of an open mind in future. Other "Conspiracy theorists" - they have obviously not approached this is rigourously as Clockwork, Is this a wind up? I hope so.Clockwork has not been rigorous at all. He hasn't debunked any of the evidence for the official version. He just ignores it like you do and then makes unsupported assertions. He asserts so called facts, but doesn't back them up with any evidence or logic for example ,that no bodies were found in Pennsylvania. Body parts were found. but they too attempt,with varying degrees of success,to question the official version of 9/11. The anti's: They seem to resort to lots of personal abuse. So has clockwork, but of course you ignore that. Stop filtering out the evidence . They seem to accept the official version without question. Not true. I have checked out everything you and Clocky have said and found most of it wanting. You can't even provide any evidence for your theory. This is sad and disingenuous. I don't understand why the "clever" ones don't just try and put a case for the official version and debunk what Clockwork says. There's never any attempt to support their "antiness". I think that's a fair summing up lol "You just broke my irony metre." |
|
By:
Sunset
Those questions you asked: 1.Pentagon/Passengers You have read about Operation Northwoods haven't you? I did ask but you didn't say you had. 2. Plane crashed into Pennsylvania field: Pictures of a hole in the ground with no debris about. No bodies.Reports from the site on TV at the time said there was no evidence of any plane. 3.Evidence that a passenger plane hit the Pentagon: I've seen no evidence that it did.No photo's,or film,or cctv or a hole the size of the plane,or debris commensurate with such a collision. 4.WTC7: Well I don't know much about controlled explosions,but plenty of people who do say it looked like one to them. What about the BBC "mistakenly" reporting that it had fallen before it had? That would suggest that someone knew it was about to come down. Amazing timing when you think about it. Apologies if my replies aren't Clockyesque enough for you. |
|
By:
djwebby Joined: 06 Mar 07
Replies: 1236 13 Aug 10 14:35 I wish people would question more things in this world and stop dismissing things that some people suggest may be true just because they are not plausible to you. It's not a matter of it being plausible or not it's a matter of evidence.Or the lack of it.Also question the conspiracy sites and don't just be brainwashed in to believing every thing they say. People in positions of power are human and they can be infallible. They are capable of doing good as well as bad and acting for their own vested interests. I have thought about that day for a long time and many things don't seem to make much sense; Such as what? The only thing that possibly doesn't make sense is the size of the hole in the Pentagon . there are certainly many questions that need to be answered. For me, an open mind is a wonderful thing and Clockwork and Gene Hackman might not be as crazy as you think they are. Yes an open mind is good. Believing every thing you read on a conspiracy website is not an open mind. Question the official version and the conspiracy version with equal measure and go where ever the evidence leads you. |
|
By:
Gene Hackman Joined: 07 Feb 02
Replies: 1647 13 Aug 10 18:21 Sunset Those questions you asked: 1.Pentagon/Passengers You have read about Operation Northwoods haven't you? I did ask but you didn't say you had. Yes i have read about it. I did answer, but you probably didn't understand what I was saying. I said yes I agreed that US government could have planned the 9/11 attacks. This of course is not evidence that they did. 2. Plane crashed into Pennsylvania field: Pictures of a hole in the ground with no debris about. Do you have a picture of this? No bodies.Reports from the site on TV at the time said there was no evidence of any plane. Do you have a source for this? 3.Evidence that a passenger plane hit the Pentagon: I've seen no evidence that it did.No photo's,or film,or cctv or a hole the size of the plane,or debris commensurate with such a collision. Even if this was true. As I have already said. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.You are arguing from silence. Proves nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence You are also of course ignoring the 80+ witnesses that saw a plane. You say there should be a lot more. There well could be. You are assuming they have all come forward. How many should there be? How many do you want before you are convinced. 500 or 5000? No debris from the plane. You might want to look at this. http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm Most of the wreckage was found inside the Pentagon. 4.WTC7: Well I don't know much about controlled explosions,but plenty of people who do say it looked like one to them. What people? Names a qualifications please? What about the BBC "mistakenly" reporting that it had fallen before it had? The media often report things that are wrong in the confusion of the moment. Happens all the time. That would suggest that someone knew it was about to come down. Amazing timing when you think about it. See above. Apologies if my replies aren't Clockyesque enough for you No your replies have been better than clocky, but that's not hard to do. At least you have tried to answer my question. Which is more than clocky has done. |
|
By:
4.WTC7:
Well I don't know much about controlled explosions,but plenty of people who do say it looked like one to them. What people? Names a qualifications please? ...physicist Steven E. Jones, architect Richard Gage, software engineer Jim Hoffman, and theologian David Ray Griffin...all easily found. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ anyways...you seem to be conceding that the size of the hole in the Pentagon didn't match the hole one would expect from a 757? Tell me more about what you think about that apparent anomaly. |
|
By:
People in positions of power are human and they can be infallible. They are capable of doing good as well as bad and acting for their own vested interests. I have thought about that day for a long time and many things don't seem to make much sense;
Such as what? The only thing that possibly doesn't make sense is the size of the hole in the Pentagon . The only thing that doesn't make sense to you is the size of the hole in the Pentagon. An aircraft gets hi-jacked and there seems to be no air force response. ATC would have known something would have been wrong for quite some time because aircraft travelling from Boston to LAX would be on a completely different flightpath and would have no reason to be routed via NYC. I'm not convinced by the hole in the ground in Pennsylvania neither nor the hole at the Pentagon. Then there was the slip of the tongue by Rumsfeld when he said 'the missile hit the Pentagon'. I've had such slip ups before when i have told lies as you tend to tell the truth when you don't mean to. There are many other things too and most of them are things that i thought were quite strange on the day it actually happened without reading any conspiracy websites. I work in aviation so maybe i'm a little more skeptical than most. |
|
By:
why did muslims wheather it be taliban or other quite happy to take credit for it.not a inside job,just a muslim job.either way we are where we are today muslims putting down the west,
|
|
By:
only stupid people believe america did it to itself,killing its own people,for what.money the only motivation could of been.muslims do it for belief.allah won,t forgive them.
|
|
By:
It's because there are millions,maybe hundreds of millions,like you redshift,that allows them to get away with what they do.
|
|
By:
btw..."them" doesn't mean Muslims.
|
|
By:
Sunset - who is paying you, or are you really, really stupid?
I asked you a question (one of many but mine never get answered). What is the maximum safe speed of a 767 at sea level? As usual, no one provided an answer, so let me help you: MAXIMUM speed of a 767-200 = 568mph at 35000 feet according to wiki (I know alot of you hang on wiki's every word and I wouldn't want to be directing you to "conspiracy sites"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767 So, at 35000 a Boing 767-200 can achieve a top speed of 568mph. Now even Sunset must be know that air becomes thinner at higher altitude. So, Sunset me old sunshine; How dense is air at 1000 feet above sea level and how would that affect a Plane's performance? In fact. Would it be possible to fly at sea level FASTER than the official maximum speed at 35000 feet? Here are the official speeds based on fake videos: MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) - 503mph RAF - 575mph FAA - 586mph NIST - 546mph FEMA - 590mph Based on the available "visual evidence" not only do we get a discrepancy of nearly 90mph between the speeds, but 3 of the OFFICIAL speeds are faster than a Boeing can produce at 35000 feet! So the question for today is: How fast can a plane that flies 590mph at 800 feet fly at 35000? [:p] Fastest finger wins a copy of the Koran and a fireproof red bandana. |
|
By:
Safe speed? Or speed?
|
|
By:
So what would be the appropriate airspeed multiplier that would account for the air density at the different altitudes?
Given that the official figures suggest a sizeable margin of error, what margin would be reasonable in assessing the veracity of the videos? Although you quote the maximum cruising speed of the aeroplane in question, what are the maximum airframe tolerances for the 767-200 series? Given these maximum tolerances, is it possible that the airspeed of a 767-200 series airliner could fall within the figures you quote? |
|
By:
At last.Two good responses.
|
|
By:
Richard Gage founder of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth movement have examined the evidence and give an expert presentation of FACTS. More than a 1000 Architects and Engineers have put joined forces in demanding a new investigation into te destruction of the 3 World Trade Centre Skyscrapers.
They have expert corroberation from the top European Controlled Demolition professional. It is obvious that the skyscrapers were destroyed by Controlled Demolition. See for yourself. http://www.ae911truth.org/ |
|
By:
Personally i believe that Israel where the brains behind 9/11.
|
|
By:
Gene Hackman Joined: 07 Feb 02
Replies: 1653 13 Aug 10 19:16 4.WTC7: Well I don't know much about controlled explosions,but plenty of people who do say it looked like one to them. What people? Names a qualifications please? ...physicist Steven E. Jones, architect Richard Gage, software engineer Jim Hoffman, and theologian David Ray Griffin...all easily found.------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The only one of those that would be qualified to comment is architect Richard Gage. There are many that would disagree with him. for example NIST ,Hassan Astaneh, a structural engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley,FEMA developed an early explanation of the collapses, which had come to be known as the "pancake" theory. It was defended by Thomas Eagar and popularized by PBS.[41] , three engineers at the University of Edinburgh published a paper in which they provisionally concluded that the fires alone (without any damage from the airplanes) could have been enough to bring down the WTC buildings. In their view, the towers were uniquely vulnerable . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Investigations Need I go on. And as already been pointed out about the 1200 architects that have doubt's ,there are different kinds of architects. anyways...you seem to be conceding that the size of the hole in the Pentagon didn't match the hole one would expect from a 757? Possibly ,but it's begging the question because you first have to prove the size of the hole. I don't know if any one has done that yet. It's hard to tell from photos because of the fire and smoke and also photos can be very deceiving. Tell me more about what you think about that apparent anomaly. See above. |
|
By:
Richard Gage founder of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth movement have examined the evidence and give an expert presentation of FACTS.
Oh yeah. His entire presentation rests on the work done by others, people like Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman, Kevin Ryan, and David Ray Griffin. He also uses clips from and promotes a variety of 9/11 conspiracy films. The most predominant are 911 Mysteries and Loose Change. http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/topten/sources/ They have expert corroberation from the top European Controlled Demolition professional. Oh no. No conspiracy theorist likes to quote Jowenko when it comes to the [Twin] towers. He clearly sees that those building’s collapses started from the impact area. Nothing leads him to conclude that those buildings fell from controlled demolition using explosives, no matter how much the interviewer tries to get him to say so.http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/ae911truths-case/other-issues/danny-jowenko/ It is obvious that the skyscrapers were destroyed by Controlled Demolition. Oh no. Not according to "Europe's top controlled demolition expert" above. Oh no. The sounds of explosives are missing from the AE911Truth video. This is something that has been brought to AE911Truth’s attention before. This website and many others continued to hold this out as an example of AE911Truth using tampered audio to deceive their audiences. Finally, it began using only the video with the audio removed. Now, as you can hear with your own ears, the audio without explosives has once again begun accompanying the AE911Truth video. [Update: The muddy audio is back] This is not good for AE911Truth’s reputation any way you look at it. At worst, this is outright fraud discovered, abandoned, and then returned to when the group thought no one was looking. At best, the group appears to have discovered and used the muddiest possible audio recording of this demolition possible. But this is not dreadful luck on its part. There are plenty of these videos about for its use with much better audio. So it still stands guilty of having abandoned this faulty video and returned to it, knowing its defects.http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/topten/oslo-demolition/ |
|
By:
djwebby Joined: 06 Mar 07
Replies: 1250 13 Aug 10 19:30 People in positions of power are human and they can be infallible. They are capable of doing good as well as bad and acting for their own vested interests. I have thought about that day for a long time and many things don't seem to make much sense; Such as what? The only thing that possibly doesn't make sense is the size of the hole in the Pentagon . The only thing that doesn't make sense to you is the size of the hole in the Pentagon. An aircraft gets hi-jacked and there seems to be no air force response. ATC would have known something would have been wrong for quite some time because aircraft travelling from Boston to LAX would be on a completely different flightpath and would have no reason to be routed via NYC. The air force did respond, but not quick enough. This could well have been incompetence.They only had something like 4 military planes assigned to the hole of the NE of the USA for this type of operation. The terrorists saw a gap in the USA Armour and they hit them were it hurts. I'm not convinced by the hole in the ground in Pennsylvania neither nor the hole at the Pentagon. Why not? Then there was the slip of the tongue by Rumsfeld when he said 'the missile hit the Pentagon'. I've had such slip ups before when i have told lies as you tend to tell the truth when you don't mean to. This would not stand up in a court of law. There are many other things too and most of them are things that i thought were quite strange on the day it actually happened without reading any conspiracy websites. I work in aviation so maybe i'm a little more skeptical than most. Such as what? |
|
By:
Sunset - who is paying you, or are you really, really stupid?
Sigh. As usual you can't win the debate so you have to resort to personal insults. Grow up. I asked you a question (one of many but mine never get answered). What is the maximum safe speed of a 767 at sea level? As usual, no one provided an answer, so let me help you: MAXIMUM speed of a 767-200 = 568mph at 35000 feet according to wiki (I know alot of you hang on wiki's every word and I wouldn't want to be directing you to "conspiracy sites"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767 So, at 35000 a Boing 767-200 can achieve a top speed of 568mph. Now even Sunset must be know that air becomes thinner at higher altitude. So, Sunset me old sunshine; How dense is air at 1000 feet above sea level and how would that affect a Plane's performance? In fact. Would it be possible to fly at sea level FASTER than the official maximum speed at 35000 feet? Here are the official speeds based on fake videos: MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) - 503mph RAF - 575mph FAA - 586mph NIST - 546mph FEMA - 590mph Based on the available "visual evidence" not only do we get a discrepancy of nearly 90mph between the speeds, but 3 of the OFFICIAL speeds are faster than a Boeing can produce at 35000 feet! So the question for today is: How fast can a plane that flies 590mph at 800 feet fly at 35000? Fastest finger wins a copy of the Koran and a fireproof red bandana. Another one of your silly inane posts debunked by orioles and sparkmaster. |
|
By:
Gene Hackman
At last.Two good responses. Well done Gene ,there might be hope for you yet. I think Clockwork is too far gone though. Actually there have been many good responses on this thread from various people that have debunked just about everything that you and clockwork have been asserting. Unfortunately you choose to ignore those postings. |
|
By:
Angel Gabriel Joined: 09 May 05
Replies: 204 14 Aug 10 15:24 Richard Gage founder of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth movement have examined the evidence and give an expert presentation of FACTS. More than a 1000 Architects and Engineers have put joined forces in demanding a new investigation into te destruction of the 3 World Trade Centre Skyscrapers. They have expert corroberation from the top European Controlled Demolition professional. It is obvious that the skyscrapers were destroyed by Controlled Demolition. Obvious if you ignore all the evidence that say's otherwise as of course your ilk do.For example the evidence of example NIST ,Hassan Astaneh, a structural engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley,FEMA developed an early explanation of the collapses, which had come to be known as the "pancake" theory. It was defended by Thomas Eagar and popularized by PBS.[41] , three engineers at the University of Edinburgh published a paper in which they provisionally concluded that the fires alone (without any damage from the airplanes) could have been enough to bring down the WTC buildings. In their view, the towers were uniquely vulnerable . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Investigations Need I go on. And as already been pointed out about the 1200 architects that have doubt's ,there are different kinds of architects. Also you kind forget to mention that other buildings fell that day around the Twins Towers not just WT7. Were they destroyed by Controlled Demolition as well? |
|
By:
Angel Gabriel Joined: 09 May 05
Replies: 204 14 Aug 10 15:26 Personally i believe that Israel where the brains behind 9/11. "Ah yes blame the Jews" People have been doing that for 2000 years now. Some things never change. You of course have no evidence it was the Jews, but when ever did facts get in the way of anti- semitism. |
|
By:
Sunset, what other buildings fell on that day?
|
|
By:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I
Watch again Sunset. |
|
By:
Sorry this is also for Masher.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I |
|
By:
Yes it was a "false flag event",like the fire at the Reichstag..Their aim being to dismantle the constitution of the United States.This has started with the unpatriotic, "patriot act"..Freedoms are taken one increment at a time..There are plenty of good films on this subject such as "loose change,"fabled enemies"and "endgame",which can be had on the bit torrent protocol..The "cabal of fools' now await for a big natural event or will manipulate one.,for the fascist totalitarian to show himself,with bio-weapons and internment camps.This was decided because "our" pollution threatens "them".Did you know for example that haliburton sell centrifuges to Iran..Elected officials meet with elitist businessmen in secret.New taxes are sought by most governments.This is to quell civil unrest as the denialists begin to realize,they will be expended..This is the beginning of the endgame...See you in game2.
|
|
By:
did we ever find out how the fbi got to lockerbie before the scottish police
|
|
By:
The Scottish Police were in he middle of a Domino`s League match at the time, and couldnt risk forfitting 2 points to the Division 1 League leaders ``The Scottish Health Authority`![;)]
|
|
By:
Masher and Sunset Cristo.
Its obvious to everyone who open their eyes, as to who has benefited from the events of 9/11. The Muslims have not benefited at all. The Global Elite on the other hand have managed to gain more control of the Worlds Wealth and pass so called Anti Terror Laws which restrict the `our` lives even further. Answer me the Question: Who has benefited from 9/11 ? |
|
By:
Sorry this is also for Masher.
Thanks, but I don't need it. Here's the point. 'Tricky Dicky' Gage (and yourself) assert that the Twin Towers and building 7 were subject to a controlled demolition. You stated that he has expert corroboration for this in the form of Jowenko. However, while it's Jowenko's opinion that building 7 was a demolition, it also his opinion that the Twin Towers were NOT a demolition. If you value Jowenko's expert opinion, you will agree the Twin Towers were not a demolition, yes? |
|
By:
Answer me the Question:
Who has benefited from 9/11 ? From 10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists A useful guide by Donna Ferentes 4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth. |
|
By:
Masher
Our Government made wild allegations which led us to an unlawful invasion of Iraq. Are you telling me the Global Elite have not benefited from this war, along with our involvment in Afganistan. Again i ask you the question: Who has benefited from what happened on 9/11. Your responses seem unusually choreographed. Can you also list any negatives traits which you feel the British and American governments pocess. That is of course, only if you feel they have any. |
|
By:
'Our Government made wild allegations which led us to an unlawful invasion of Iraq.'
Which were criticised and exposed as lies by our free press. The biggest winners from 9/11 were the islamic extremists those seeking to incite tension between the West and muslims and lure the US into an aggressive foreign policy. |
|
By:
"those seeking to incite tension between the West and muslims"
You mean the Daily Mail? |
|
By:
lol
|
|
By:
A slight contradiction there Sparkmaster.
Are you saying the Government lied to go to war but its the Islamic Extremists that have benefited? Are you calling our The Global Elite idiots? |
|
By:
If you believe I've contradicted myself then by all means say so.
No I wasn't saying that 'the Government lied to go to war but its the Islamic Extremists that have benefited?' No I'm not making any comment about a so-called Global Elite. |