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:
clocky, how have you proved that the reflections are fake? You haven't yet rebutted my posts on the matter.
I see no reason to believe the EF video is fake. But let's suppose it is. What is your explanation for the supposedly impossibly and incorrectly reflected non-plane-caused explosions? Why would the supposed fakers create an image that you claim is impossible and incorrect? |
|
By:
indeed
|
|
By:
slarty - what am I supposed to be rebutting the fact that you can see a light on a ceiling when you tilt a shaving mirror? FFS. If I could be bothered I would post the position of Fairbanks' camera, the angle of the windscreen and the position and height of the twin towers. They don't correlate. Did you try the experiment I suggested? Obviously not. You clearly do not understand the laws of reflection from your posts, so do a physical experiment for yourself.
You ask why those that created the video would insert fake imagery? It's called Ooda loop. Look it up. It helps that the military/intelligence agencies can confuse people's minds. From the responses on here you can see it works admirally. I'm done here. Ciao. |
|
By:
Cya!
|
|
By:
Oh well. I still feel you havent answered my points. And you seemed to think that because something is behind something else in the horizontal plane it couldn't be reflected, overlooking the effect of the height of the object.
I would certainly be interested in yany post showing the relative positions of the WTC's, the point of impact reflected, the position of the car and of EF (including his height relative to the windscren if possible). As I stated earlier, it is certainly possible to see objects reflected from "behind" another object in the circs I described. Do you agree? |
|
By:
I rather like this. If I read Clocky's post correctly, he's alleging that this is a fake video, made so deliberately badly that it could be spotted by a few amateurs (whilst not, surprisingly, giving experts much of a problem), so that it would 'confuse people's minds'.
Odd then, that he does their work for them by circulating it. |
|
By:
LOL. I'm beginning to wonder whether clocky's actually a disinfo agent assigned to spread confusion and division amongst those discussing 911...
|
|
By:
slarty - you are the disinfo agent on here, repeatedly linking to fake truth sites. I have been patient with you regards the fake video and the laws of reflection and you still repeat that "it is possible to reflect something in a horizontal plane". This proves that you are promoting disinformation - I never said anything of the kind. You are a fraud.The twin towers could have been 3 miles high and that windscreen would NOT have reflected their image.
Now fck off back to Pumpitout or whatever other sh1t you read. Clown. |
|
By:
He's BACK!
|
|
By:
clocky, I have tried to follow your reasoning and I have visited your helpful physics link, which confirmed my understanding of how reflections work. However, I have found nothing that contradicts what I see in the EF video regarding that reflection. I have explained why I believe it is possible for the windscreen to reflect the explosions and you have not refuted my explanation. I have also asked for an explanatory diagram, which you alluded to but have yet to provide. I would still like to see such a diagram.
|
|
By:
Btw, clocky, you seem to have misquoted and/or misunderstood me. My use of the phrase "horizontal plane" in reference to the word "behind" was an attempt to clarify your claim that a reflection could not show something that was behind the reflecting surface. What I took you to mean, and what is physically correct, is that a reflection cannot show something that is beyond 180 degrees from the reflecting surface.
I suspect that claims that the particular reflection is impossible are based on a misunderstanding of the fact that, while the WTC was behind the windscreen in the horizontal plane (to which the term "behind" usually refers), it was not beyond 180 degrees from the reflecting surface and hence could still be reflected. |
|
By:
I've asked this question before but it probably got lost in amongst all the other discussion - can anyone who believes that there weren't any planes and that all the footage of them hitting the WTC is faked tell me why anyone would choose to execute a 'false flag' attack in that way?
That is, if we suppose for the sake of argument that the US Government or security forces or some sub-section thereof really were responsible for the attacks, and wanted to make the world believe that terrorists had flown two planes into the twin towers, why on earth would they not just fly two planes into the twin towers? Seriously, if you were charged with masterminding the most heinous act of self-sabotage imaginable, which of these do you think has the greater potential to go wrong? Plan A: Fund and train some Muslim extremists to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Plan B: Destroy buildings with missiles but pretend that they were planes, meaning that you need to i) prevent any independent news outlet or private citizen from taking any footage of the attacks that might show up the subterfuge. Bear in mind that you are hitting two towers. There is no particular reason why anyone should happen to be filming the towers when the first 'plane' hits (other than it is a global landmark) but once it has, there's a good chance of a few cameras being trained on them when the second one comes in. ii) create fake footage of sufficient quality that it will fool everyone and ensure that it is used by the world's media, iii) persuade hundreds, if not thousands, of people to pretend that they had friends or relatives on the planes (if there were no planes, then there can't have been anyone on them, so everyone who says that they knew somebody on one of those planes is lying). iv) Ensure that nobody involved - which must include whoever created the fake footage, whoever used the footage, whoever fired the missiles and whoever put all the explosives in the towers to ensure that they collapsed, not to mention all the people mentioned in iii) - ever tell anyone about it. Why would you do it that way, when the only thing that can go wrong with Plan A is that someone uncovers the link between the terrorists and the US? A link that you'd like to think a decent intelligence agency would be able to disguise pretty well. Maybe I've watched too much '24', but it strikes me that Plan A is something that an especially callous and despotic Government might contemplate. Plan B is just too ridiculous for words. |
|
By:
clocky, you have mentioned several times that there are a number of "911 truth" sites that are bogus (I agree this is likely). I'd be really interested to know which you think are genuine.
|
|
By:
I still prefer plan C. The one involving dodgy arab geezers hijacking planes and stuff.
As for somebody asking why the aircraft didn't fly right through the building...Well, aircraft are built to fly and are not very substantial when the stress and forces of a crash are applied. The building might appear to be slender and delicate...it is not. It will be built to withstand substantial side loads as experienced in high winds. |
|
By:
Or...and I find this even funnier...
"We've worked out a way we can invade Afghanistan?" "Right, some stuff about WMDs and Al Qaeda? So if we're found to be lying we can just say we THOUGHT we were right and hope to get away with it" "Mmmmm, no. We're looking outside the box a bit. We're gonna destroy the twin towers and kill thousands of people and blame it on Bin Laden!" "Um, well seems a bit extreme, but tell me more. He HAS got form for it, what with the previous attempt to bomb it. So what, we lay some explosives, and when they go off and destroy the building we blame Al Qaeda, not exactly straightforward but I could see how we might get away with it" "Yes! And.......no! We ARE going to do that, but we're going to pretend it was planes! AND we're going to this really badly so as to confuse people's minds!" "I really need to get that trapdoor fitted" |
|
By:
clocky's gone
 |
|
By:
they killed Kennedy
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
Possibly, but if they did, they just shot him - they didn't shoot him and then fake up some footage that showed him being rogered to death by a gopher.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
lol
|
|
By:
Was he???!!! Poor fella.
|
|
By:
Clocky....there are none so blind as those that will not see.
Dumbing down has ensured that 90% of the populace of America and the UK do not now have the savvy to question anything their masters care to inflict on them. In fact, they have been trained to side with, and defend the actions of, the corrupt invisible individuals that control them, without even realising it! I'm amazed you patience stretched to you being on this thread as long as you were. |
|
By:
ah yes, those stupid normal people, they're really annoying!
|
|
By:
Keep watching X Factor people, and believe what your government tells you. False Flags and corruption are just a myth. Your government loves you. There is no such thing as war mongering global elite. We love our soldiers, we give them all they need. Go back to sleep people. The rich are looking after you. Your government loves you.
|
|
By:
I don't like the X Factor. And I think you need to be a bit more questioning. Why believe the government all the time?
|
|
By:
Can you explain yourself please Sparky ?
You are moving too fast for me!  |
|
By:
The image of JFK being rogered by a gopher in an openheadwound while slumped across the back seat of a limo whilst jaqueline screams and tries to climb out the back will probably return whenever his name is mentioned now.
 |
|
By:
Gabriel. Go and blow your bloody horn somewhere else! You insolent, patronising git.
I do not, and have never watched X-factor or any similar such trash. I DO spend quite a lot of time watching the 'Discovery' channels and what I glean from these coupled with my own knowledge and an appreciation of what is, and what is not, a viable possibility, tells me without doubt that the Moon Landings are real and the World Trade Centre buildings were destroyed by arab terrorists. I don't suppose that they could have envisaged the collapse of both towers even in their wildest dreams! |
|
By:
Thats the spirit Naydam.
Its all about you ay? Nothing to do with the narrow minded, sheep who compromise as the media controlled majority. If you take offence to this and would like to censor what i say,then go for it. You should remember though, your opinion like mine means nothing. |
|
By:
Smalltime Punter Joined: 05 Sep 02
Replies: 862 19 Aug 10 23:17 Apologies if things have moved on, but I’m still having trouble with this “there were no planes” theory. Do people seriously believe that? I would love to have been in the meeting when they were working out the details: CHIEF: “Right, so it’s agreed – we’re going to fly two planes into the WTC and blame it on the towel-heads so that we can invade their countries and nick all their oil?” DEPUTY: “Not planes, chief. Missiles.” CHIEF: “Missiles? What’s wrong with the planes?” DEPUTY: “Missiles are better. It’s what they were designed for.” CHIEF: “But where are Al-Queda supposed to get missiles? Aren’t people going to wonder how they got them into the country?” DEPUTY: “Yes chief – that’s why we paint them to look like planes.” CHIEF: “I beg your pardon?” DEPUTY: “We get two missiles, paint the ‘United’ standard on them, glue on some wings, then whang them at 85th floor.” CHIEF: “And people will mistake them for planes will they?” DEPUTY: “Well, they’ll be going pretty fast.” CHIEF: “Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay. It’s just, the thing is… I was sort of hoping for some powerful footage. You know, Middle Eastern terrorism strikes at the heart of the West; a towering inferno of capitalism – that sort of thing. That’s the whole point of having two planes – everyone will be reporting on the first one when the second one hits. Guaranteed exposure.” DEPUTY: “So?” CHIEF: “So it’s not going to look very good when people slow it down and realise that what we told them was a hijacked plane is in fact a missile in fancy dress.” DEPUTY: “No, well obviously we’ll have to fake some videos.” CHIEF: “Fake some videos?” DEPUTY: “Yes, it’s amazing what these CGI boys can do. Have you seen ‘The Day After Tomorrow’?” CHIEF: “But every national network will have cameras trained on the towers a minute after the first plane – sorry, missile – hits. How are we going to switch tapes with all of them?” DEPUTY: “We don’t have to Sir – I’ve sounded them out and they’re on our side.” CHIEF: “Sounded them out! We’re talking about slaughtering thousands of our own citizens, ruining lives, instilling fear and paranoia into the hearts of millions. This is the most horrific black operation ever conceived, and you’ve discussed it with Fox News?!” DEPUTY: “Don’t worry Sir, they’re on board.” CHIEF: “What, all of them?” DEPUTY: “All of who?” CHIEF: “All the networks. It’s not just one or two – this is New York, there are hundreds of media outlets in this city alone. They’re all OK with using our film?” DEPUTY: “Yes, Sir.” CHIEF: “And there’s no chance of a leak? These are journalists we’re dealing with don’t forget. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but some of them can be a bit inquisitive.” DEPUTY: “Don’t worry Sir – if anyone tries to break ranks we’ll just discredit them.” CHIEF: “’Discredit’? Is that spy-talk for ‘kill’?” DEPUTY: “No, actually discredit them. You know, smear them. Spread stories. Portray them as loonies – the sort of lonely weirdoes who might – “ CHIEF: “ – who might glue wings to a missile and pretend it’s an aeroplane?” DEPUTY: “Yes. I mean no! Look, trust me it’ll be fine – nobody will believe them.” CHIEF: “OK, but what about the passengers?” DEPUTY: “What passengers?” CHIEF: “The passengers on the planes. I know we’re using missiles, but if we want people to think they’re planes then we’re going to need real flights. I know these journalists, they might be happy to go along with mass murder and Government cover-ups, but the first thing they’re going to ask when we tell them two planes have smacked into some skyscrapers is what the flight numbers were. They think it adds depth.” DEPUTY: “Hmm, good point. We’ll need to divert a couple of actual planes.” CHIEF: “Exactly. So what do we do with the passengers? If Jane Q American knows that her husband is on flight U01 out of Boston, and we say that after flight U01 went out of Boston it went into the trading floor of Lehman Brothers, it’s going to look pretty suspicious when he calls from Detroit and tells her his flight was rerouted.” DEPUTY: “Yes, I see. We’ll have to kill them.” CHIEF: “What!” DEPUTY: “Oh come on, Sir – we’re going to lose thousands in the towers. Another couple of hundred won’t hurt. It might even add poignancy.” CHIEF: “Poignancy?” DEPUTY: “Yes, we can tell them to phone their families and pretend they’re on a hijacked plane – you know, tearful last phone call “Tell the children I love them,” all that nonsense. We’ll make sure we tape a few as well – bound to play well in the heartlands. CHIEF: “Whereas actually we’ll just…” DEPUTY: “Shoot them in the face, yes.” CHIEF: “So in a manner of speaking, we aren’t really lying about what happens to them – their planes will be hijacked and then they’ll die?” DEPUTY: “Exactly Sir! One less thing to keep track of.” CHIEF: “Mmmm….” DEPUTY: “What’s the matter?” CHIEF: “Sorry?” DEPUTY: “You don’t seem convinced.” CHIEF: “No, no, I expect it’s fine. It’s just…” DEPUTY: “What? I’ve put a lot of work into this.” CHIEF: “I know, I know…” DEPUTY: “I didn’t get home until gone 9 yesterday.” CHIEF: “I know, and I’m very grateful. I just wonder though…” DEPUTY: “What?” CHIEF: “Well, we seem to be going to an awful lot of trouble in order to convince the world that two hijacked aeroplanes have crashed into the twin towers. You know – kidnapping the passengers, faking the footage, painting the missiles (that reminds me, make sure you get the colours right), gagging the press…” DEPUTY: “What’s your point?” CHIEF: “Well, wouldn’t it be easier if we…actually did it?” DEPUTY: “If we actually did what?” CHIEF: “If we actually did hijack two planes and fly them into the World Trade Centre.” DEPUTY: “I don’t think I quite follow.” CHIEF: “Yes, think about it – we wouldn’t need to abduct the passengers because they’ll die anyway, we wouldn’t have to worry about anyone taking their own videos of the missiles instead of using our faked ones of the planes, we wouldn’t have to rely on cooperation from the entire international press corps (although maybe a bit late for that since you’ve already told them) – it just seems…you know…easier…” DEPUTY: Looks rather sullen CHIEF: “It’s not that I don’t appreciate the effort you’ve put in.” DEPUTY: Sniff. CHIEF: “You’ve gone above and beyond on this, no question. DEPUTY: Still sulking CHIEF: “I’m giving you an ‘A’ in your Performance Review.” DEPUTY: Gives the Chief a withering look CHIEF: “Oh, OK fine – we’ll do it your way. Just don’t blame me when the Betfair Forum figures it all out.” Still the best comment on here |
|
By:
yes v good SMP
 Bizarre that the theorists come with this 'no planes' stuff as if if they are concerned that their story is not convuluted enough already. |
|
By:
SMP
May I say,in all sincerity,that I think that you and slarty have put up the best rebuttal of conspiracy claims on this thread.Although I still lean firmly towards not believing the official 9/11 story,you have at least made me slightly less convinced than I was.For too long,on this type of thread,there has been nobody -and that includes the so called "clever ones- who have put up a sensible and logical defence of their position. Regarding this War On Terror(as the USA puts it): I'm sure you'll agree with the old maxim "The first casualty of war is truth". Which elements of the 9/11 official 9/11 story do you think aren't true? Thanks |
|
By:
Can't really put that any more clearly Angel.
|
|
By:
Not sure you mean me, Gene. For the record I would give the following percentage probabilities for what really happened:
5% Official Story (it's just possible though very unlikely imo) 95% Something Else (LIHOP, MIHOP, Inside job, etc) |
|
By:
Cheers MM1, tobermory
Hi Gene - to be honest, I haven't studied any of the official or conspiracy claims in any detail, so my opinions are probably based more on what I find plausible or implausible, rather than the result of any research or evidence. For example, I believe planes hit the WTC and the Pentagon, because any other explanation seems ridiculous. And I believe that the planes were hijacked, again because I can't see any other plausible explanation. Similarly, it seems most likely to me that the individuals named as the hijackers in the official report were indeed the people responsible, although I would certainly concede that the discovery of the intact passport was a remarkable coincidence. On the question of who organised the attack, as opposed to who carried it out, I have a slightly more open mind. I still think that Muslim terrorists are by far the most likely culprits, but I don't entirely discount the possibility of a 'false flag' operation. However, what most puts me off that theory is the purpose/motivation - what exactly would have been the strategic goal for such an attack? If it was to justify an invasion of Iraq then why use/frame terrorists with no connection to that country? As I understand it, virtually all of the alleged hijackers were Saudi Arabian. And the invasion of Iraq didn't happen until about 18 months later, and only then after a protracted diplomatic wrangle over the legality of it and the issue of WMD - 9/11 was far from being the main justification. Given what actually occurred as a direct result of 9/11, it would seem that the motivation, if it was a false flag attack, was to provide an excuse to invade Afghanistan. But why would the US want to do that? Ostensibly to crack down on terrorism, but if 9/11 was a US operation then the terrorists aren't nearly as much of a threat as we've been led to believe, and the US Government would know that. So they would have to have had some other reason for wanting to go into Afghanistan, and I really can't see what that could be. So far as I am aware, it has little strategic significance and few desirable natural resources. Basically, if the Yanks really did plan and execute the 9/11 atrocities, I would have expected them to have a very clear plan as to what they were going to do next. Their subsequent actions don't suggest that to have been the case. And although this may seem hopelessly naive to some people, I also have a lot of trouble believing that any Government or group of people could conclude that the best way to justify its foreign policy is to murder thousands of its own citizens. So I guess some details I have doubts about - e.g. the passport. If the investigators felt they had a good idea who was responsible but didn't have strong enough evidence, or evidence they could use, then it wouldn't entirely surprise me to learn that some evidence had been planted/doctored in order to strengthen the case in the eyes of the public. And I can believe that US intelligence agencies may have had more prior information about a possible attack before it happened than they have admitted to publicly, although I wouldn't draw any significant conclusions even if that did turn out to be the case - they may simply have not taken the threat seriously enough, and nobody is going to want to admit to that given the way events unfolded. But I still think that by far the most likely explanation of the attacks is that planes hijacked by Muslim terrorists were responsible. |
|
By:
What a refreshingly well reasoned post, SMP.
Regarding: "And I believe that the planes were hijacked, again because I can't see any other plausible explanation." Have you considered the psossibility that the planes were remotely controlled? Perhaps the Arabs were on the flight but they were patsies (ie were framed for the job). As to strategic reasons, there are many potential reasons. Here are a few off the top of my head. 1) Arch US insider Zbigniev Brzezinski in his book The Grand Chess Board said that the 21st century would be dominated by whichever state controlled the vast hydro-carbon wealth of Central Asia. Perhaps the US needed an excuse to get a major military presence in the area. 2) The CIA and other western intelligence agencies are widely implicated in the global drugs trade. It is thought that the drugs trade is the source for numerous off-budget activities which can then be carried out without proper oversight (as they do not appear in the accounts). See Alfred McCoy's seminal work on this: The Politics of Heroin in South-east Asia, as well as Bo Gritz, Barry Seal, Mike Ruppert, Ted Gunderson and many others. The Taleban wiped out opium production in Afghanistan (the world's biggest opium producer). Was 911 a pretext to take the Taleban out? 3) The Taleban are reported to have refused a deal with US oil people over a pipeline to get natural gas to the sea from the Caspian Basin. Did this make them a target for removal? 4) The US was apparently in Vietnam to prevent the Domino Effect of states turning Communist. The same fear had also been raised in onnection with the Taleban. If the fiercely independent and anti-western Taleban had made a success of governing Afghanistan other strategically important countries in the area may have fallen under the control of similarly uncompliant regimes. Did the west need a reason to stop the Islamic Domino Effect? etc |
|
By:
*addendum to 3 - after the Taleban were removed the massively lucrative opium trade has been restored.
|
|
By:
Interesting post Slarty. My degree thesis was on Brezinksi (one or more probably both of us has got the spelling wrong, there may even be a 'w' in there). He was smart but very polarised in his thinking.
4) I can see a fear of Pakistan being controlled by the Taliban, but I'd argue that their hand has been strengthened by the afghan campaign. |
|
By:
A lot to consider there Slarty, most of it very frightening!
With regard to planes being remotely controlled - it's certainly a lot more plausible than the no planes at all theory, but it would still need the flight crews (i.e. pilot, co-pilot and anyone else in the cockpit) to be involved (since if they weren't they'd be radioing air-traffic control with a certain degree of urgency). So I guess the first thing you'd want to look at is who those people were and whether they were the sort of people likely to a) condone mass murder, and b) volunteer for a suicide mission. With regard to the various theories you put forward as to US motivation for invading Afghanistan, I'm probably a bit out of my depth, but 2) seems pretty thin - the drugs trade may well be a useful source of income for the CIA for all I know, but I can't believe it's so important that it would justify a false flag attack on the scale of 9/11. I would have thought they'd be more likely to either find alternative sources of dodgy income, or turn to creative accounting. 1) and 4) are the most likely I guess, and there may well be something in what you say. For the sake of humanity, I sincerely hope not though. Surely all that most people in the world want is the opportunity for them and their families to live in peace and safety, free from starvation, war and disease? And if, along the way, they get the chance to back a horse in-running at 1000/1 and the rider gets back on to win, then that's all so much the better.  |