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:
Not as I recall. Ah well, never mind.
Anyone else? |
|
By:
It was on last night's video from clockwork - the one with with the pasted on bridge.
|
|
By:
That's the one Boggle.
You can watch it now Sparky and then tell me how that reflection is possible. As I said,if you can't,I'd like someone to tell me of a debunking site that can explain it to me. |
|
By:
Thanks boggle :-)
|
|
By:
I'm getting confused - are people saying that planes didn't fly into the towers? Or is it a case that they did but dubya was behind it?
Forget the Pentagon one thanks. |
|
By:
Some people say that the WTC strikes are computer generated images.
|
|
By:
But when they say that they don't really believe it do they?
|
|
By:
I take it this is the bit around 4 minutes in. I'm not sure why you would think that a reflection?
|
|
By:
What did you see in the car windscreen sparky?
|
|
By:
I'm not even certain it's a windshield Gene, or if it's a reflected or refracted image, or if the footage is genuinely that of the broadcaster. The only thing I'd be reasonable confident of, is that if the US government is going to embark on an exercise involving murdering thousands of people and hoping that global media aren't going to be bothered about it to the extent that they'll allow their footage to be edited, they'd probably get someone to do that who is reasonably capable.
|
|
By:
or a video of course.
|
|
By:
Do you agree that it's a car?
If so,and you don't think it's a windscreen,what do you think it might be? |
|
By:
I don't know if it's a car.
|
|
By:
Might the image in the car's windshield be a secondary reflection from a glass-fronted building behind the camera?
|
|
By:
You don't know much for someone that knows everything do you Sparky?
|
|
By:
Exactly Pokermonster.I need someone to explain it to me.
|
|
By:
It would have to be a secondary reflection in my opinion for the image to appear at that angle.
Unless of course the film has been doctored purely for devilment; there's so much bollocks made up about 911 on the internet anything is possible. |
|
By:
Can someone who believes that there weren't any planes and that all the footage is faked explain to me why you would do it that way?
I.e. let's assume for the sake of argument that it was a false flag attack, and the US Government/Security Forces want the world to believe that Muslim terrorists have flown two planes into the WTC. Why fake the footage and rely on the complicity of media not to expose the charade? Why not actually fly two planes into the towers? |
|
By:
Good point Poke.
Footage can be doctored,as you say.Bollocks has indeed been made up about 9/11. It's just a question of who has made it up. Who has most to gain by doctoring/faking images? Which side of the argument has the most resources to do such things? Which side has the most influential friends within media/broadcasting to enable them to do such things? |
|
By:
You don't know much for someone that knows everything do you Sparky?
I don't know everything, that's just your assertion. I'm humble enough to recognise that I know far less than scientific experts. |
|
By:
If Gene is right I know somebody who went to a lot of computer generated funerals. He works in New York and he's pretty certain the buildings were knocked down and people died.
|
|
By:
Blackburn
There's absolutely no doubt that the buildings crashed down and that people were killed.Nobody would argue against that. |
|
By:
Thanks gene, I was beginning to think some people disagree with that. The computer generated thing is too absurd to discuss.
|
|
By:
That's not really true is it Sparky.
You are humble enough when those experts suit your case,but when,for example,the experts at pilots for 9/11 truth state their case,then you question the numbers of them, their qualifications,their authenticity, and inevitably include your sniping little "funnies" in your responses to them. There's nothing humble at all then. |
|
By:
No Gene, it's not I who refer to ordinary people as 'the masses'. Yes, I question the numbers of them, their qualifications, their authenticity etc - I have a questioning mind. And look what I found with the first one of them I looked up!
|
|
By:
You have a questioning mind?
Yet when the question "Why are there no cctv images(or any images)of flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon?" is asked,your response is to just accept the official version that that's what happened. |
|
By:
For the sake of historical accuracy, I think I need to tell the truth about what happened.
Some dodgy arab geezers hijacked some 'planes crashed 'em into some big buildings in America. There!! Now we all know. Just for good measure I must also confess that all 12 'Lunanauts' did actually visit, walk upon and safely return from, the Moon. |
|
By:
No my response was to think 'actually there were', and then to think about why there might be so few.
|
|
By:
and why might there be so few then?
|
|
By:
We've done this, on this thread! Just read back.
|
|
By:
Working on the basis that the local cctv cameras woul have been placed there by the Pentagon. Why would they then make the footage available to all and sundry?
If you didn't see it, then you weren't on the 'approved' list! |
|
By:
Gene Hackman Joined: 07 Feb 02
Replies: 1737 20 Aug 10 10:24 The way it was described on the film makes it seem like it's not possible,and to a layman like me that seems to be true - it's a reflection that's not possible. Can anyone please tell me,or give me a link to anyone that can debunk it? Thanks. Yes I can, but first a word from the chief and his deputy. CHIEF: "We're murdering a lot of people. So tell me again, why are we putting this impossible reflection in our fake video?" DEPUTY: ? Here is that debunking link: Clockwork Joined: 11 Dec 01 Replies: 1727 18 Aug 10 22:09 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. Now Clocky is reading from script here and he hasn't actually tried it. Is it possible? Absolutely it is. So heads out of conspiracybollux.com and go outside and try it. So sad that just about the only thing of value Clockwork has offered gets ignored. Chin up, Clocky. |
|
By:
I don't see any problem with the apparent windscreen reflection. The camera is clearly at a low angle (compare it with the height of the man in the shot). Couple that with the rake of a windscreen and the height and relative closeness of the WTC behind the car and it would be possible to reflect the image as seen imo. (I used a shaving mirror to check this!) Also windcreens tend to be slightly convex which I think would help.
|
|
By:
No.
|
|
By:
No.
|
|
By:
No.
|
|
By:
No.
|
|
By:
No.
|
|
By:
No.
|
|
By:
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
 |