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:
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?
The shaving mirror is not a good example because it's not convexed, but it does prove one thing that an image can be reflected from behind. 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. Prove it? that's your problem you can't be bothered or more likely because you can't prove your beliefs. Did you try the experiment I suggested? Obviously not. What was that? 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. Yes you have been done. Ciao. |
|
By:
slarty - you are the disinfo agent on here, repeatedly linking to fake truth sites.
Begging the question again. 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. Again I ask you to prove your assertion? Now fck off back to Pumpitout or whatever other sh1t you read. Clown. LOL  This is one of your sites. You are calling your own websites.Calm down. Keep taking the pills and you should be fine. |
|
By:
I still agree with...
|
|
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. Great post. I will leave these for clocky and gene to refute this one. Point by point in a detailed way by using independent sources.I think we will be waiting a long time. As I say for every question the conspiracy answers it throws up 10 times as many questions. |
|
By:
clocky's gone
He was well gone before this thread even started. |
|
By:
Keep watching X Factor people, and believe what your government tells you.
This is not my positon. You are attacking a straw man. False Flags and corruption are just a myth. No they happen. Just not been proved in the case of 9/11 Your government loves you. No don't believe that either. There is no such thing as war mongering global elite. If there is then please provide your credible, empirical evidence that there is and I will be internally grateful to you. We love our soldiers, we give them all they need. I agree with you if you are being sarcastic. Go back to sleep people. The rich are looking after you. Your government loves you. Still no evidence given. Oh well I will keep asking though. |
|
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. Now this I agree with. Your opinion means nothing because it's not based on facts and evidence . Unlike naynad which obviously is. Facts, truth and evidence obviously means nothing to you AG. You have proved that with your posts. |
|
By:
Gene Hackman Joined: 07 Feb 02
Replies: 1794 27 Aug 10 17:54 MM1 Did you read about Operation Northwoods then? Just about to read about that now, ive spent hours looking through that website about 7/7 |
|
By:
Right then i read the Wiki page and wtf that is bonkers they had signed up to cause terror attacks to themselves back in the 60s and blame the cubans for it
 |
|
By:
That's right.They didn't,but it shows that they considered it.
The strangest thing to me about 9/11 is that "official story believers" think it outrageous that the USA would sacrifice their own people. Of course they would.In the great scheme of things 3000 people isn't a lot. |
|
By:
Sunset - I know I shouldn't indulge you, because I have already proven beyond doubt that the video is fake and you have proven beyond all doubt that you are dumb, but for the benefit of the casual reader, I'll persistif it exposed you as either a paid operative or, more likely, just thick.
I'm going to ask you some questions and you have to answer them and not post questions back; 1. Do you understand the laws of reflection? Just a simple yes or no and then we'll continue. |
|
By:
OK. question 2.
2. Evan Fairbanks was positioned on the corner of Trinity Place & Liberty St, approximately 125m from the South Tower (when it stood). Please explain, using mathematics and the laws of reflection how an object positioned 125m behind a windscreen can be seen when viewed from approximately 3m in front of the said windscreen at waist level? You may phone a friend if you have any. Masher, sparky, please feel free to join in. |
|
By:
'Of course they would.In the great scheme of things 3000 people isn't a lot.'
I would disagree, which may be why we hold different views. |
|
By:
why would terrorists attack early in the morning when only 3000 were in the towers
|
|
By:
I don't know. I've heard it suggested that this was because it would get the most news coverage globally. Plenty of other possibilities of course...lesser airport security perhaps?
It's not really relevant, but I once had to book a flight for a mate in Danzig, who'd just split up with his girlfriend, and needed me to book him a flight home. I was like where are you? At the airport! Could you not do it there? There's me and a cleaner! |
|
By:
Welcome back, clocky.
You state that the building was 125m behind the location of the film and use this claim to support your view that the reflections were impossible and the film fake. However, much more information is needed to judge the plausibility of the reflection footage. For instance: What is the angle of rake of the windscreen? What is the height of the impact reflected? What is the height of the camera relative to the car? If we had this information we could know for sure whether the shot is impossible. Without it there is little reason to think it so. |
|
By:
And indeed, a source for the 125m claim if not already given.
|
|
By:
some conspiracy terms to google
gladio p2 masonic northwoods dr marys monkey tuskegee sv40 vaccine h g wells new world order http://infowars.wikia.com/wiki/United_Nations http://infowars.wikia.com/wiki/The_Consultation_Process http://infowars.wikia.com/wiki/Happiness_Economics http://infowars.wikia.com/wiki/Global_Warming_in_their_own_words http://infowars.wikia.com/wiki/Prof._Ian_Ward |
|
By:
I really don't have the will to read through every post on this thread so apologies if this question has been discussed previously.
It's ludicrous in the extreme to believe that America could have organised the attacks from within (it would surely involve thousands of people, if not tens of thousands, to be in on it)but one thing has always struck me as odd: Is there really only one, time delayed, camera trained on the Pentagon?? |
|
By:
I've got some questions which hopefully someone from either side of the argument could answer. Ps open minded on the 9/11 thing. Some ridiculous theories out there, but also parts of official version which I don't really buy either! Anyway....
1. Only posting because of rages post above, I've always wondered about that. If they claim to have only 1 basic camera for areas of a very important building, surely that's not right. 2. Before 9/11, was the Pentagon (an obviously restricted) tourist attraction? i.e could people get fairly close to it. The reason I ask, is if it was, surely it would be fairly busy with tourists, armed with cameras etc. 3. Surely if an airliner was to fly at such a low level through any city, be it Glasgow, London, Paris etc, someone would have captured it. Obviously Concorde was filmed in flames by someone driving a car, it just seems highly unlikely that no one would have captured it at all. 4. Apologies if I've missed it, but why with the first tower burning, when the 2nd plane hits, i've never seen a really clear cut image of the livery of the 2nd jet. Obviously there could be footage out there I've missed, but every bit of footage I've seen, the quality isn't great. I only ask this this, because when it was happening at the time, I 100% heard eyewitnesses on the radio admant that the planes were unmarked. I expect this one could be easily explained though. As I said, open-minded on the whole thing, and happy for these to be answered by either side. |
|
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. There have been many people that have debunked your conspiracy theory 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. May be this thread has not been a total waste of time then. I know for me it hasn't. 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. Yet more unsupported assertions. 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". This is true, but the War on Terror started after 9/11. Which elements of the 9/11 official 9/11 story do you think aren't true? Thanks |
|
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) Why do you come to this conclusion? Based on what evidence? |
|
By:
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.
This I agree with. 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. Again this could be true. But I still think that by far the most likely explanation of the attacks is that planes hijacked by Muslim terrorists were responsible. Agreed. |
|
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). For this to be true alot of the evidence has too have been planted and faked. Do you have any evidence proving this? Also if there was a conspiracy there would have to be a lot of people involved and none of them have come forward. See this link below. http://www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm |
|
By:
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.
This as already has been pointed out doesn't really hold water, because it would have made much more sense to blame it on Iraq or Saudi Arabia. 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? This makes more sense, but again why make it such a big event? Why not just crash one plane? 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? Again even if true it proves nothing. There needs to be more than motive. You need some real physical evidence. 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? This is where you contradict yourself. The USA didn't need a 9/11 to invade Vietnam so why would they need one in 2001. Especially when they are the only super power now. The USA have always done what they want. They don't have to justify it by murdering thousands of their own people. That's daft. |
|
By:
addendum to 3 - after the Taleban were removed the massively lucrative opium trade has been restored.
This is the only one of the four that makes sense. |
|
By:
Fabulous, if I may
1. That would surely depend on the sixe of that area? If one camera covers an area adequately, why use two? I'm not sure such a claim has been made though. 2. I don't really know, but if you think of the aircraft that got into trouble over New York last year, did a loop and landed intact in the Hudson....and NOBODY got a decent pic of it, it would be very surprising if someone had got a shot in a much less touristy location. 3. As above, Concorde was filmed BECAUSE it was in flames, but that's the only footage of that event. Nothin of the crash itself. There are basically, very few images of plane crashes. 4. I can't explain that, I didn't hear it. |
|
By:
Fabulous 28 Aug 10 13:04
I've got some questions which hopefully someone from either side of the argument could answer. Ps open minded on the 9/11 thing. Some ridiculous theories out there, but also parts of official version which I don't really buy either! Anyway.... 1. Only posting because of rages post above, I've always wondered about that. If they claim to have only 1 basic camera for areas of a very important building, surely that's not right. they were all confiscated by feds. They have never been released, despite requests. 3. Surely if an airliner was to fly at such a low level through any city, be it Glasgow, London, Paris etc, someone would have captured it. Obviously Concorde was filmed in flames by someone driving a car, it just seems highly unlikely that no one would have captured it at all. the flight path is very suspicious and unusual and its been challenged as impossible. It is more like the behaviour of a computer than a human pilot. Anyway, it supposedly didnt fly at lows levels for very long, it came in very steep. |
|
By:
They tangs?
'they were all confiscated by feds.' Cheers. |
|
By:
'Anyway, it supposedly didnt fly at lows levels for very long, it came in very steep. '
This is true, and yet on this very thread you'll find people mocking the idea that it flew through a city at low heights. There's nothing so easy as inventing an entirely false premise and discrediting! |
|
By:
the idea it flew at the height it did and the speed it did should be questioned.
it doesnt make sense why the pilot would risk crashing onto the highway before he got to the pentagon |
|
By:
Happy to oblige.
What height and what speed? |
|
By:
i dont remember.
you can find it on the net somewhere i dont deal with all this minutiae |
|
By:
Sparky
When I say that 3000 people isn't a lot,I am speaking from what I believe would be the thoughts of the US government. Thousands of soldiers have been sacrificed in various wars involving the US over the years,and I've no doubt that they would justify their action in terms of legitimate sacrifice for the greater good. |
|
By:
The greater good Gene, most conspiracy theorists I've heard have suggested they were doing it for personal gain. What's your theory?
|
|
By:
Oh right then Tangs, I'll ignore that then.
|
|
By:
They did 4 things:
1. In the short term they justified their intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. 2. They gain more control over their own people -The Patriot Act for example. 3. They have managed to engineer a new enemy (to replace the communist threat) by demonising every Muslim in the world. 4. They,and their friends and associates,and the corporations they are involved with,made lots of money. |
|
By:
Hard to see how any of those could be for the greater good Gene. And 3 is demonstrably false.
|
|
By:
1.Well,they wanted to intervene,I'm sure you'll agree.
So that would be,in their eyes,for the greater good. 2.More control over their own people-How can that not be good? 3.Tell me why that is demonstrably false. 4.You don't think that they think that making a lot of money is good? |
|
By:
1. No, wanting something doesn't make it for the greater good. I'd like some chips right now, but that wouldn't make slaughtering 3000 people I am supposed to be protecting for the greater good.
2. I don't think greater government control is necessarily a good thing, individual freedom is important, and that's a very important concept to most Americans. 3. The US government have gone out of their way time and time again to stress that the enemy is Al Qaeda and Bin Laden and not the vast majority of muslims who have nothing to do with them. 4. I don't think that making a lot of money is for the greater good, such that it would justify killing 3000 people, absolutely not. |