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:
im genuinely asking
|
|
By:
Has Cleland ever suggested anyone other than Islamic terrorists were behind 9/11?
|
|
By:
and how does tower 7 collapse please?
|
|
By:
I don't know Castor, in much detail. I'd assumed you were suggesting you had some kind of knowledge on the matter. No worries if not.
|
|
By:
well that was one of the first suggestions made about how the towers collapsed. which i would believe is possible. however each corner of the building would have to burn and weaken at the same time which it obviously doesnt. surely one corner burns faster than the others ie the ones on the side where the planes hit. so this would make that corner weaker causing the buildin to almost topple to one side if you like. it would lean. therefore the building would fall to the side but it doesnt it falls straight down. also ive read documentation sayin no high rise steel structured building has ever collapsed due to fire. so why these ones? the twin towers were actually designed to withstand such impact believe it or not
|
|
By:
Anybody think Canary Wharf Tower is an easy target ?
|
|
By:
lol, no idea if that's just idiocy, or an attempt to portray 9/11 conspiracy theorists as idiots, but it's really not worth the time I gave Lucky's scientific ignorance. One a day please!
|
|
By:
so what are your explanations of it then? i ask again.
|
|
By:
what do you know what i dont? you are told what they want you to believe. from all sides. thats why i dont subscribe to any particular view on 9/11 as there are many sides to every story. but those towers fallin the way they do is the only thing im pretty sure about. until someone convinces me otherwise thats what i will continue to believe.
|
|
By:
tbh i just reckon theres a good chance the yanks did it. throughout history they have killed there own. why not now?
|
|
By:
As before, I ask why you believe that. Gene has suggested that you do because that's what it looked like to you. I merely gave you the opportunity to provide something more meaningful. Evidence, argument, etc.
No loss here. |
|
By:
from the videos i have seen and information i have read it leads me to beleieve that. if you can provide me evidence that this wasnt the reason the towers fell down i will change my view. like i said before, at one point i was watchin that much conspiracy sh ite it was fu ckin my head up. it actually got to the point where i thought there were no aeroplanes at all!!! i dont think i wanna get into it all again tbh!!!
|
|
By:
The planes were empty, except for explosives,
all the identities of the supposed dead were forged, they didn't exist and the 10,000's of grieving relatives at memorial services all over the world were CIA agents. |
|
By:
And all the people who know vicims, by 6 degrees of seperation are CIA agents
|
|
By:
For what it's worth :
I've seen films of demolition of tower blocks in east London, and seen a few go down myself. The documentary states the explosives MUST be accurately placed, and set off simultaneously, or the building will fall sideways. Some of them were 22 storeys high, and demolished less than 30 yards from houses and shopsm which were obviously evacuated just in case... No other building was ever damaged that I saw. |
|
By:
fu ck em anyway. as bad as it was for those people who were in there, that was less than half the ammount the yanks had blown up in iraq and afghan by sept 11th
|
|
By:
Castor
Human life shouldn't be a score card  |
|
By:
sparkmaster. Joined: 07 Aug 01
Replies: 10657 08 Sep 10 23:42 lol, no idea if that's just idiocy, or an attempt to portray 9/11 conspiracy theorists as idiots, but it's really not worth the time I gave Lucky's scientific ignorance. One a day please! What scientific ignorance might this be oh enlightened one?? |
|
By:
ttt
|
|
By:
United 93 is on C4 tonight.It's about the passengers on the hijacked flight 93 overpowering the hijackers and crashing it into a field.
I'm sure someone can tell me how the hijackers,who had enough "weaponry" with them to enable them to burst into the planes cockpit and take control of it,but then managed to get themselves ousted from the cockpit by unarmed passengers. |
|
By:
No steel structures have or will fall in such a way as the the 3 buildings on 9/11 did, WITHOUT demolition charges.
I work in forestry. If we fell a tree we can do it to within feet of a building. What I saw on 9/11 was precise demolition. Very similar to the intentional felling of a v.large tree. |
|
By:
comparing skyscrapers to trees
yeah that figures... |
|
By:
Lol that tree things is brilliant.
No Gene, I can't because, as you surely know, that didn't happen. Lucky, that referred to your 'moving bridge' theory. |
|
By:
I know Sparky.
The hijackers were so terrified of the unarmed passengers getting into the cockpit,that they abandoned their mission to hit their chosen target and crashed the plane into a field. That's what happened,they eventually decided. Do you think that's what happened? |
|
By:
So is that what you're saying now Gene? If so why did you want people to explain 'how the hijackers,who had enough "weaponry" with them to enable them to burst into the planes cockpit and take control of it,but then managed to get themselves ousted from the cockpit by unarmed passengers.'
Looks to me like you were attempting to cast doubt on the accepted version of events by lying about it. |
|
By:
Do you think thats what happened?
|
|
By:
and I would call it artistic licence rather than lying.
|
|
By:
I don't know Gene, I had thought they were believed to have crashed the plane before they could be overpowered completely by the passengers, as a 'least worst' result, from their perception. That seems the most likely scenario to me.
|
|
By:
That's just speculation.
|
|
By:
It seems very odd to me that these armed and very committed hijackers should abandon their mission because they might be overpowered by unarmed passengers.
Anyway,how do they know what happened? I thought everyone was killed on this plane? |
|
By:
Which is stronger, an oak or a steel building?!
Err, path of least resistance applies.. |
|
By:
Channel 5 9/11 crime scene investigators, on now.
Shame they shipped off the steel without fully checking it out. Or maybe even tested the dust for explosives. Why wouldn't they do that? after all it was the biggest crime scene in history. Yet they didn't use basic investigation procedures. |
|
By:
I don't know Gene, see my post! It's not I who've expressed certainty, however it's by far the most obvious conclusion to draw. Are you suggesting that, on the brink of being overpowered they thought 'Well we COULD crash the plane, but on the other hand maybe the passengers having forced their way in to the cockpit will just get bored and go back to their seats'.
|
|
By:
Go on Injera, I really want to hear where you're headed with this.
|
|
By:
Sparky
The most likely scenario would have been that the hijackers would have attempted to complete their mission.Suppose the passengers had forced their way in to the cockpit,what had the hijackers got to lose by fighting with them? Perhaps they were frightened of getting hurt. They probably didn't want to commit suicide straight after a scrap. |
|
By:
If peeps can't see the similarities between tree felling and how a building falls then I despair. A tree will NEVER fall in on it self. NEVER.
It will always fall in the path of least resistance. An oak tree is a strong a 'structure' as you will find outside of steel. It's strength and power when it falls emphasises the point that it will NEVER fall in on itself. Why? Cos it's so damn strong!!! |
|
By:
if it was that strong it wouldn't fall over in the first place
|
|
By:
The 3 towers did something which defied architecture and engineering calculations, all 3 collapsed at freefall speed. The pancake theory must have happened to all 3 Towers on 9/11 if no explosives were used. Is the pancake theory unique to 9/11. If so do we have unique failures in the structures. One thing i am sure of though, the concrete should not have been pulverised exactly as it is, in an explosive demolition.
|
|
By:
It will if it's felled/demolished!
The twin towers plus WTC7 were expertly demolished. No way would steel collpase in on itself. That's just nonsense. Try it in the garden! Build a small replica and set fire to it! It will NEVER collapse into itself. |
|
By:
The top video on this page highlights the procedures they would normally take on an investigation.
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/ |