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:
slartybartfast Joined: 10 Jul 04
Replies: 781 17 Aug 10 13:46 Did you watch the Citizen Investigation Team's film, masher? I'd be interested in your views on it(and anyone else's). Not watched it all yet, but I will be watching it as well as Fabled enemies, Endgame and Loose Change.Don't worry no stone will be left unturned. Unlike those that believe in the 9/11 conspiracy, I look at the evidence from both sides. |
|
By:
Gene Hackman Joined: 07 Feb 02
Replies: 1687 17 Aug 10 18:14 Masher I have watched that film and it has to make you think doesn't it? Having said that,I'm sure it wont make you think at all. By the way,when you post your reply and tell me why you disagree with the film, make sure you state SPECIFICALLY which points you disagree with. I dont want a general rant,I want specific rebuttals/denials. "You just broke my irony metre again and Ive only just got it fixed." Why don't you do this then Gene(specific rebuttals/denials) when myself and others have presented evidence instead of just ignoring it. The word consistency obviously means nothing to you. |
|
By:
Gene Hackman Joined: 07 Feb 02
Replies: 1687 17 Aug 10 21:42 Sib Of course there are some journalists as you describe,who are only too happy to sell papers with MP'S expenses scandals stories,but the 9/11 thing is another matter altogether. I have no doubt at all that there are many journalists who have serious doubts about 9/11 but Again you give no evidence for this assertion. Same old same old. have no evidence that they could go public with. Yes you've got it. They've got no evidence so they would end up looking silly.Just like you have done on this thread. As you say:David Icke....look at his coverage in the media. I've read two of his books. what a waste of time that was. Kept waiting for some evidence. At the end of the book he say's something like I can't prove any of this , but it feels right to me. God give me strength. Another one to speak out:Michael Meacher MP....I've never once seen or heard of him since. In the USA:Charlie Sheen.....pinko liberal...traitor etc That's why not everyone will speak up. |
|
By:
Angel Gabriel Joined: 09 May 05
Replies: 268 17 Aug 10 22:34 Yes Gene the Hollie Greig case is a case involving Hollie who has Down`s Syndrome. Claims from her that she was sexually abused by many figuers of authority in the Aberdeen region. Her father included who was part of a paedophile ring which had links to Thomas Hamilton who also had confirmed links with certain politicians. Robert Green the journalist who is trying to expose the case, has had a Gagging order imposed on him, so has the mainstream media in effect. Hollie was originally compensated £13,000 but then all investigations seemed to hit obsticles of non communication. The D Notice which Tony Blair imposed just at the time of the Iraq invasion, was to stop the FBI case, which was listing British politicians, whom it had records of downloading pornography, what pornography is the question. No the question why you never give any evidence for your assertions. It's sad that you can't give any evidence for your beliefs. |
|
By:
I have watched that film and it has to make you think doesn't it?
Yes, it makes me think what a load of bollux. Having said that,I'm sure it wont make you think at all. Wrong. See above. By the way,when you post your reply and tell me why you disagree with the film, make sure you state SPECIFICALLY which points you disagree with. I dont want a general rant,I want specific rebuttals/denials. Now this is what caused my head to explode. You believe there was no plane and the witnesses were planted. Leaving aside its ludicrous conclusion, this film asserts there was a plane and does so using some of the very same witnesses you say were planted. The question is, why aren't YOU rebutting this film. Because eyewitness testimony is only credible when it supports their case. If it doesn't then the eyewitnesses most be planted. This is how their perverted mentality works.The word consistency means nothing too the likes of Gene. Earlier in the thread he said that eyewitness testimony was unreliable now he thinks it's ok. As you say the film say's there was a plane. This refutes Gene's position, but he likes the film. lol.  |
|
By:
paradox and equilibrium Joined: 06 Jul 07
Replies: 1694 17 Aug 10 22:54 Main overwhelming give away point in that film is thetotal lack of damage to the floor/foundations as clearly evident in the photographs. A 757 manged to impact at ground level but not even scrape the floor? You Must be seriously retarded to accept that. Same could be said about a missile strike. This doesn't help your case. |
|
By:
As I wrote on page 1, "
 " |
|
By:
that's all loads of posters write now
|
|
By:
Sunset
The `War on Terror`which came because of 9/11 is an everlasting war.The Laws of War have changed because of 9/11. If the US want to accuse a country of harbouring terrorists or have the capabilities of being terrorists,( which is your arguement regarding the war with Iraq comes in to it) then they will invade, set up military bases and the pattern continues. It will happen with Iran. |
|
By:
Some of these conspiracy theorist have raised a few interesting questions to suggest that there may be one or two small strange unexplained things (which you would expect anyway when any large scale disaster happens)about that day.
However conspiracy theorists, like on this thread, spend far too much time thinking that if they put forward enough evidence that other people/governments/organisations benefited from 9/11 that they are proving that they were behind it. Just because certain parts of government/industry may have benfited financially or politically days, months or years later from 9/11 is not evidence to prove that they were behind it. If my father died in a car crash and everything pointed towards it being an accident, evidence that I may have benefited from his will is only evidence of motive and not evidence that proves I had anything to do with it. |
|
By:
Masher
You stated at 22.35 last night that I "believe there was no plane" and that the "witnesses were planted". All I ever said was that I don't believe a plane crashed into the front door of the Pentagon,and I still don't. Regarding the witnesses that say the saw the plane crash into the Pentagon: Yes,I do believe they were planted. And the witnesses that saw the plane on a different flightpath,as in the film you saw?......I'd sooner trust their testimony than the planted witnesses. Sunset I've made no comment on the twin towers.Can we just stick to the Pentagon? What about the pilots for 9/11 truth,that say that the flightpath,and angle the plane approached,and entry point of the plane was,in their opinion, impossible given the constraints and manouevarability of the aircraft? |
|
By:
Yes but shrewd dude, not everything does point to 9/11 being an accident this is why millions of people world wide a raising questions. And experts in the fields of science, engineering, architecture,demolition etc have put together a report of their own, raising issues of inaccuracies in the 9/11 Commission report.
|
|
By:
Was that the speech you were on about Angel?
|
|
By:
Sorry Sparky, which speach was that mate?
|
|
By:
the JFK one
|
|
By:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxnpujfanUM
This one sparky. |
|
By:
Is that the same one Slarty linked to?
|
|
By:
Not sure Sparky but its the famous JFK speach, in which he blows the whistle on Secret Societies.
|
|
By:
I'll assume it was then, and his debunking is accurate.
|
|
By:
Im not sure that anyone has ever debunked this speach.
|
|
By:
To Sunset,
Re:The St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church This 4 storey masonry building didn't exactly fall on 9/11, in fact it was crushed by the weight of debris falling from the south tower. That's hardly the same as WTC7 coming down, which, when you consider that 2 buildings stood between it and the falling towers still fell without any resistance. Also, those 2 buildings WTC5 and 6 had far more damage from the dbris and had larger fires, yet their steel frames remained standing. Here are some pics of the damage on the site, http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch4.pdf |
|
By:
Im sure even Sunset agrees that WTC7 was `pulled`
He will never admit it though because then it adds further implications, to the events on 9/11. Prior knowledge maybe? |
|
By:
'Operation Northwoods' has opened my eyes even more.
|
|
By:
Operation Northwood is unclassified evidence of False Flags, it should open everyones eyes djwebby...probably not some on here though!
|
|
By:
Not the speech Angel, your claim that that was what it referred to.
|
|
By:
I'm having the 1000
 |
|
By:
HAHAHAHA.
I told you not to waste your time, gene. In fact, I have to say, you are where I was a few years ago. You'll come to learn that CIT are not all they are cracked up to be. Nor Steven Jones, nor Richard "gatekeeper" Gage. No matter it is a long learning curve, but I love to watch the clowns on here defending the OCT. Still no answer to my initial question (they don't do answers, just links). Shame, we hadn't even moved on to the G defying swerve at the end of the dive. (When I say dive, it depends on what footage you watch because one contradicts the other. Ho hum. So, Sunset and crew. Re the old FAKE Evan fairbanks video, which was shown extensivley on MSM, including an interview with the actor/agent that played him within hours of the, ahem, attack. Have you worked out yet that it is physically impossible for a windscreen to reflect an object behind it? This is something you can discover yourself, if you had the inclination, just by stepping outside your house (bedsit or whatever) and observing real scientific laws. have you worked out why the actor leaning on the pick up truck doesn't react until AFTER the impact? Did he not hear the plane and why is he looking like he is waiting for a cue? "Action!" Perhaps you can inform me why the "plane" meets no resistance from the "tower". I am using the terms loosely because you are not watching a real film. Or why UA175, the clue is in the UA, has a silver belly and not dark blue? Or why it doesn't explode on impact? Or what type of professional camera shoots such sh1tty footage? Or perhaps you have never ever watched his video at all? |
|
By:
G defying swerve
Are you talking about a bank, Clocky? DON'T go off script ... you know what happens  |
|
By:
are you saying the planes didn't hit the towers?
and what kind of resistance do you expect from a jet crashing into glass |
|
By:
I didn't realise the towers were made of just glass, CB. Me bad.
|
|
By:
No, a plane, Orioles.[;)]
Trying to keep it simple for the kids. |
|
By:
Momentum = mass x velocity
Hope this helps |
|
By:
just some thin walls and glass was the only resistance to the plane entering the building no?
|
|
By:
i'm not sure what you expected to happen
did you think the jet would bounce straight off? |
|
By:
Far from meeting no resistance from the tower I think it actually got RATHER severely damaged!
|
|
By:
Orioles - you're a bright lad, coz you know Latin and stuff. Can a windscreen of a vehicle reflect objects that are behind them?
I thank you in advance for your courteous reply. |
|
By:
Windscreens proceeding towards a flat, glazed surface can reflect reflections
Hope this helps |
|
By:
You're quite right, CB, the twin towers were held up by thin walls (probably 2" x 1" studwork) and glass. I must try harder.
|
|
By:
I saw an interview (quite by chance) with one of the architects who designed the Shanghai World Financial Center. He was talking about what went wrong at WTC and explained how they were designing the center with that type of attack in mind. 1600ft high (gulp)
'Course, he was in on the conspiracy [;)] |
|
By:
And what do you base that assumption on , sparky? The fake fairbanks footage? the fake Hezarkhani footage? The fake CBS footage? The fake Fox footage? The fake MSNBC footage? The fake CNN footage?
Please give me some direction as to what you base your claims on. I don't see any damage caused in any footage, it just melts into a steel framed building. Is this indicative of real events or do you not understand how easy planes fall apart on impact? Perhaps they only vaporise on certain dates? I refer you to my earlier questions. |