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:
1001; that was short lived.
|
|
By:
masher
Are you saying that if I stand 6ft in front of my car and look into the windscreen,I would be able to see a reflection of a tree,say 10ft behind it? |
|
By:
If you were short enough and the tree tall enough and/or close enough behind the car, yes imo.
|
|
By:
Thanks for the non-link, Masher - I guess you couldn't find one that debunks the laws of reflection?
Gene - of course you can't. Masher/Slarty - familiarise yourself with the laws of refection: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/refln/u13l1c.cfm Now, if it is hard for you to undersstand this use example no 2 as a guide. Tip your monitor approximately 30 degrees in a clockwise direction and this should give you an approximate line of sight for Fairbanks' camera. What can we see? Oh dear. Blue sky.  Slarty - Try tipping your shaving mirror above your line of sight and repeat your experiment. You won't see anything behind it until it's nearly flat, which is not what we are seeing on the video. HTH. |
|
By:
Just tried it with a mirror in my dining room.Propped it up at 45 degrees and looked into it.The ceiling was all I could see.Nothing behind it.
|
|
By:
Light a torch just below your chin in a dark room, that's a good one as well.
|
|
By:
Clocky
I'm not sure that will convince Sparky though. Earlier on he said he wasn't sure it is a windscreen and then that he didn't know if it was a car. |
|
By:
I don't follow your argument, clocky. It is possible to see reflections at angles approaching 180 degrees off any reflective surface. Those in the video are certainy well under 180 degrees and are therefore perfectly feasible.
In the interests of science, I have just done the following experiment. I moved my laptop to within a couple of feet below and in front of the ceiling light. I then tilted the screen to approximate the rake of an average windscreen (guestimated at 45 degrees as I couldn't find any figures via Google). At ordinary seating height I couldn't see the light reflected. But when I crouched down (hence changing the angle of incidence - like the camera in the film) the light is reflected in the screen despite being "behind" the laptop in the horizontal plane. Nothing weird here imo. |
|
By:
No, he's not too bright, gene. He probably missed the bit where the actor playing Fairbanks said "I approached a man leaning on the hood of a car" or the fact that the inset picture shows him approaching a man leaning on a car.
You've got to give it to these debunker debunkers - they're pretty sharp cookies.  |
|
By:
Slarty - move more than 2 feet in front of your light and what do you see? Or maybe the twin towers are just a couple of feet behind the car, it's hard to tell on fake videos?[;)]
|
|
By:
It's not just about closeness, though, clocky. Think about the effect of the height on the angles.
|
|
By:
Gene @ 16:47
Bend down and you will easily see parts of the ceiling that are behind the mirror. |
|
By:
Just done it Slarty.It's true,you can.
I suppose that it depends on what angle you are looking at the mirror from. Am I right in saying that you could see anything within an arc of 180 degrees? Clocky? |
|
By:
Plenty of actors about on 9/11 just like 7/7.....ironically mock drills of almost identical scenariios where taking place... Why would people be planted on these days in both terrorist attacks...seems strande to me
|
|
By:
I blame Thatcher.
|
|
By:
Thatcher is public enemy number one, One evil woman.
|
|
By:
Missed, didn't bother having the sound on. I thought the caption 'Is that a car windshield?' was indicative of doubt on the behalf of whoever put that together. Seems I was being kind.
|
|
By:
Wow got to over a thousand so any more juicy info?
|
|
By:
Absolutely zilch!
|
|
By:
who dunnit?
|
|
By:
have they found the black boxes yet?
|
|
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). There have been lots of answers on this thread. The links are to back up as evidence what they are saying. Unlike you who just make wild assertions with out any evidence. 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 you say. Prove it? 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. Fake. You are delusional. Prove it is fake? Have you worked out yet that it is physically impossible for a windscreen to reflect an object behind it? What are you on about? 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? He doesn't react until he looks up. He looks up when he hears the noise. It's not rocket science. Did he not hear the plane and why is he looking like he is waiting for a cue? "Action!" Rubbish. He is doing no such thing. You are delusional. 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. No resistance. What do want in to do just stop dead and fall to the ground. Of course it's going to go into the building. Or why UA175, the clue is in the UA, has a silver belly and not dark blue? It's because of the lighting on the object and hence the exposure will all be different. Look at these pics just over half way down the thread. http://letsrollforums.com/anomaly-flight-175-impact-t9863.html?s=ded03869eeda8422059bd271de9438cb& Or why it doesn't explode on impact? I'm sorry? You seem to be watching different videos to me.And an alternative universe. Or what type of professional camera shoots such sh1tty footage? Does it? the first plane was not clear, but that's because it wasn't focused correctly. Or perhaps you have never ever watched his video |
|
By:
Or perhaps you have never ever watched his video at all?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JwTXEJSr4A Yes watched it many times. |
|
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 prove they are faked? Please give me some direction as to what you base your claims on. I don't see any damage caused in any footage, What footage? The footage that you claim too be faked? You must be watching different videos to me. it just melts into a steel framed building. Are you for real? There is a massive fire ball.Time to go to specsavers clockwork or start taking the pills again. Is this indicative of real events or do you not understand how easy planes fall apart on impact? What? Perhaps they only vaporise on certain dates? They vaporise depending on the speed they are travelling and how solid the object they impact. The Pentagon was a much more solid object than the Twin Towers. I refer you to my earlier questions. I refer you to my last post. |
|
By:
what a strange bloke
Odds on clockwork is David Icke. |
|
By:
Clockwork Joined: 11 Dec 01
Replies: 1730 18 Aug 10 22:42 Oh dear, CB. You really don't have a clue and I thought you were joking. At what temperature does burning aviation fuel burn at Riccardo, you physics expert, you. You are forgetting that there was lots of other stuff that could burn in the Twin towers not just avaition fuel. |
|
By:
There are some proper nutters on this thread who haven't got a clue. Kerosene will easily melt steel in the conditions that were seen. If you also take into the kinetic energy of the aircraft, i is even more likely.
Mass approx 70 Tonnes = 70,000kg Velocity approx 300 knots = 150m/s Therefore K.E = 70,000 * 150^2 = 1575000000J Quite a fair bit of energy there..... That's 1000th of the energy of the Hiroshima nuclear bomb...... Steel will melt at about 1800K, What is your source for this? so in an adiabatic system (which I know this is not an exact example of) you could get wood to melt steel, kerosene would also "crack" at these temperatures into lighter aliphatic compounds, you would have plenty of heat there, trust me. |
|
By:
Which Bin Laden are you talking about? theres been a few of them over the years!
HahaHa. Ye right. We're back to fake video again. I won't ask you to prove that because obviously I'm wasting my time and you can't. |
|
By:
Sunset
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? The videos from New York clearly show that it is possible. Or are they faked as well? That's your usual cop out when the evidence doesn't sought your theory. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am talking about the Pentagon strike. I know you are. I asked you why you don't want too talk about the Twin Towers. You ignored my question. Pilots for 9/11 truth say it is impossible for the Pentagon to be struck in the way it was reported given the constraints/limitations/angle of approach etc etc. Are all these pilots wrong? May be. It obviously possible because some thing very similar was done in New York on the very same day. Some thing that you have not denied. They say that for inexperienced pilots to come anywhere near being able to fly a large passenger aircraft in the way required is unthinkable. These are respected pilots that understand their subject. Are they wrong in their analysis?Please deal with this point specifically How would they know? Have they ever tried it? It was done in New York. Do they deny that as well? Now answer my questions? |
|
By:
?Right here we go then the day of the attacks i was 12 or 11 cant be bothered to work out and had just got in to see the news statiosn panicking like mad over a terroist act. Right im very open about this also as i have never even thought of a conspiracy as i just accepted it and to be honest America has nothing to do with my life so fu** them tbh.
If some people can answer a few questions, preferbly the conspiracy people, i havnt bothered to read all the thread as id be here for hours but ive been looking on youtube 1. Why would America attack itself Surely that is stupid? Correct. 2. The first hit as captured here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-jzNfxKSi... That to me doesnt even look like a plane, so what do people think this is? Looks like a plane too me. Billions of other people agree it was. je3. The second plane that hit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_80YfdwJAV... is that really a normal jumbojet? Link is broken. 4. Why was there bombs and explosives going off in the towers? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFI... THat video right a the beginning a massive explosion and why were the firemen saying there was bombs in there? link is broken. 5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVH5jm06pJ... Link is broken. Why was eye witnesses saying it wasnt a normal plane? Who said this? Eye witness testimony can be unreliable. But it was a millatary plane? So the video was faked? 6. Wouldnt a plane going that fast actually go straight through a building? And come out the other side? Some of it if you watch the videos. Right to that pentagon issue i thought genuinely that i got told they tried to get it but missed and landed in the sea or something? so Think you dreamed this one. ha1. Ive seen that video, its to hard to find out if its a plane or not 2. If theres witnesses saying its a plane then surely has to be? Correct. No one eyewitness said it was a missile, but gene still thinks it is. Go figure. 2. Where did the plane disappear to? I havnt seen one picture of a plane there? There were parts left. Google is your friend. http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm Just a few questions ill await answers, im open to both now |
|
By:
MM.I'll try.
1. False flag operation.One of the oldest tricks in the book.Been going on for hundreds of years.Pretend you're being attacked and then tell everyone that you'll protect them,but It'll cost you.Gangsters do it all the time. 2. Haven't seen it.If it's the twin towers one,yes it looks like a plane to me. 3. Don't know. 4. The firemen obviously thought there were explosives going off. 5. Must have thought it looked like a military plane 6. I don't know. 1. There doesn't seem to be any plane,I agree. Do you even bother to look at evidence and links. http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm Look at these pictures and stop ignoring evidence. 2. There are witnesses and witnesses.You can get people to say they've seen anything if you try hard enough. 3. There was no plane that hit the Pentagon.That's why you can't see it. Sigh.Same old mantra. Ignore the evidence and believe what you want to believe. |
|
By:
Bloody this site right then
Video for question 2 http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=qNw0jOhVJ3A Video for question 3 +5 in the same one http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=ZzbVn3o8JNE Video for question 4 http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw This video is the most interesting. Don't know about this one. |
|
By:
A segment of Robin Cooks article in the Guardian Feb 8th 2005
Osama bin Laden is no more a true representative of Islam than General Mladic, who commanded the Serbian forces, could be held up as an example of Christianity. After all, it is written in the Qur'an that we were made into different peoples not that we might despise each other, but that we might understand each other. Cite please. The Koran say's kill the infidel and Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west. At last we agree on something. Well done you. You got something right. |
|
By:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NANtvZHnT8
Bush bullshiitting!! So what . People don't always remember correctly. Tell us some thing we don't know. |
|
By:
Thanks gene, I was beginning to think some people disagree with that. The computer generated thing is too absurd to discuss
This is true. Clockwork takes it further proof he is right though if no debunks his delusions. |
|
By:
Gene Hackman Joined: 07 Feb 02
Replies: 1753 20 Aug 10 12:52 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. You have had this one answered. Stop ignoring it. CCTV points down most of the time and is unlikely too see anything in the sky. |
|
By:
Sunset
Your responses are so daft that I think it's best that I withdraw from this thread.Trying to deal with you has become like dealing with a 14yo. Apologies if you are 14. |
|
By:
Sunset
Your responses are so daft that I think it's best that I withdraw from this thread.Trying to deal with you has become like dealing with a 14yo. Apologies if you are 14. Roughly translated this means you can't give any evidence for your conspiracy beliefs, so your going to call you names and run away and stick your head in the sand. Say's it all really. |
|
By:
Gene - at last you have seen the light!
Please try to understand the laws of reflection and you will know that the towers cannot be reflected in that windscreen. Furthermore, even if they could, they would be distorted by the convex surface of the screen. As I said before, anyone can try this for themselves. That's real proof, not linking to intelligence backed sites like Lets Roll & Rense. I have proved through REAL physics that the Evan Fairbanks video is fake. Poor old Sunset hasn't even addressed this fact. I hope those that have an open mind can see what happens on these threads. Same old idiots defending the indefensible. The dumbing down of our education system has evidently been very successful. Finally a video for poor old canaryboy,instigator of this thread. You see,they were made of something stronger than glass and thin walls. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__gUjUv1vvw |
|
By:
Clocky
I've had enough to be honest. These people are quite willing to accept the "evidence" provided by the US government at face value every time,yet when any alternative view is put forward they dismiss it completely. I was hoping that the more "clever" ones were going to debunk many of the theories,(genuinely I do,I'm quite willing and will be happy to be proved wrong)but they have done no such thing.In fact,they haven't even made any sensible attempt to debunk any of the "conspiracy theories". I am wasting my time here. I think I'll leave it to you and others. |