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:
For those who ain't got the time to watch a lengthy documentary in its entirety, forward the link below to 17:50 and watch for just TWO minutes;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afUS_58XC5I It's funny . Though imagine how funny someone summarizing the conspiracy theories like that would be |
|
By:
Even as a part-time knickerbocker I have grown a tad weary of discussing the terrible events of 911; I must've written several thousand words about it on this forum alone over the years.
It still surprises me, though, how those who dismiss the notion of explosives being present in WTCs 1, 2 and 7 choose to ignore a wealth of evidence supporting it, not least of which is that of their own eyes. |
|
By:
So all the programme makers , analysts, journalists and investigators, and all the viewing public throughout the world are what?
Too thick to see what you can see? Too blind to believe ? Part of a universal conspiracy? |
|
By:
It's by no means all, sir. Quite a few agree with my point of view.
|
|
By:
My guess is that you are not an explosives expert or have an informed view on controlled demolition. I am confident you have not been to ground zero and examined the evidence.So the question is are you qualified to have a point of view after watching a bit of telly?
|
|
By:
its fact that melted steel was found at ground 0 - the jet fuel does not reach temperatures that melt steel only weaken it - explosives can reach temperatures of 3000 degrees, enough to melt steel, you dont have to fly to new york and stand on the site or be an expert in certain fields to know these facts
|
|
By:
No, I'm not an explosives expert, sir. I have been to ground zero many times, though, and for what it's worth earned a physics degree late in life so some of my arguments are not completely without foundation.
The fact is that many of the theories one reads about on the internet, all purporting to show proof of a cover up in one way or another, are absurd in the extreme and insulting to the memory of those who lost their lives. Holographic aircraft, ball-shaped missiles disguised as planes, Illuminatic prophecies etc, are all utter bóllócks in my opinion. What troubles me greatly, however, is the manner in which WTCs 1, 2 and 7 were razed to the ground. I have seen a wealth of compelling evidence to suggest that these buildings were imploded, and very little of scientific worth to suggest that they were not. Steel-framed structures cannot collapse at free-fall speed (as per WTC 7) or near free-fall speed (as per the twin towers) without the presence of carefully primed explosives to sever the core columns simultaneously. A collapsing object does not, and never will, take tha path of greatest resistance. |
|
By:
this "pic" was taken/made/constructed in the 1930,s ,check the angle the guy is sitting at 3 in from left , this pic shows the construction technology was fairly advanced way back then but so were fakers
 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206050/The-picture-proves-iconic-photograph-workers-eating-lunch-Rockefeller-beam-publicity-stunt.html anyway to really understand the fall from grace of the twins and the physics of what happened we need to go back to the very beginning of the build and understand how the building was constructed and even then its very difficult to grasp how the building stood up ,the central beams ,the box sections around them and the outer shell and the way they were all connected ,not until you understand this will you understand how it could have came down so easily and quickly . this is a decent few pics and gives an insight http://911anniversary.nydailynews.com/flashback-twin-towers-rise-stand-tall-over-nyc#11_N1691378.jpg this is the aftermath http://publicintelligence.net/911-ground-zero-high-resolution-aerial-photos/ and not easily explained imo .  the biggest conspiracy is that how was anyone who questioned events quickly labelled a conspiracy theorist  |
|
By:
Awww fck me.
Paper survives massive impacts because it is a substance that can generally be pushed away by the initial movement of molecules in the air by an explosive effect. Metal can be thus pushed but less effectively because it is denser. Paper has high drag properties. (See for example,and Googleable, Aircraft Accident Report No 2/90 (EW/C1094) In answer to some other loon, I suggest you look at the recordings of seismic activity in the area where the Twin Towers stood that were recorded that day by Columbia University. And instead of reading some d1ckwad's analysis of the their readings on a conspiracy website, look at what the scientists who took the readings say. That's these people: Authors Won-Young Kim, L. R. Sykes, J. H. Armitage, J. K. Xie, K. H. Jacob, P. G. Richards, M. West1, F. Waldhauser, J. Armbruster, L. Seeber, W. X. Du1 and A. Lerner-Lam1 , Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, N.Y. 10964, USA; 1 also Dept. Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University... referencing these: Anderson, J. and J. Dorman, Local geological effects on short-period Rayleigh waves around New York City, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 63, 1487-1497, 1973. Kim, Won-Young, The ML scale in eastern North America, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 88, 935-951, 1998. U.S. Geological Survey, An Assessment of Seismic Monitoring in the United States: Requirement for an Advanced National Seismic System, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1188, 55 pages, 1999. Or are all those people with first hand, direct access to the data part of the conspiracy too? Sorry to say this but "conspiracy theorists" involved in this 9-11 thing need to look inwards as their priority, rather than outwards. They need to look at why they WANT to believe something that patently isn't true. There does seem to be strong psychological effect here that is much more worthy of study than what they are actually doing. In the meantime the one genuine conspiracy surrounding 9-11 has never had the level of publicity that it should have had, partly because anyone querying the official positions regarding that day are tarred, quite understandably, with the same brush as Jones, Griffin and the other cynical, manipulative tw@ts earning money on the back of the dead and the genuinely misguided who buy into the fairy tale. I think that's me done for another year. |
|
By:
its an absolute miracle, and the only one found, and the person who handed it in was never to be seen again, like i say if you actually look at the link i posted you will see the interrupted security lines on the face pic not to mention the link itself - its filed under a different name - a convicted terrorist involved in the planning of 9/11 and not he hijacker himself
|
|
By:
To Dobbo
I do know is that those towers were brought down by terrorist attack. WTC7 was not hit by either of the 2 planes and housed the CIA and others, do you agree with the NIST report of how it collapsed on 9/11? I agree that terrorists hijacked the planes and flew them into the towers but how much pror knowledge did the U.S secret agencies have? and if they did have prioir knowledge, then what did they set in place themselves? |
|
By:
Pokermonster
I've posted this before but in case you haven't seen it this is a report on the WTC collapses by an independent authority on explosive demolition: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf Well worth a read. |
|
By:
AG...so the secret service had prior knowledge..what are you suggesting happened then? What scenario fits your beliefs?
|
|
By:
Just read that Kelly and regarding the explanation for WTC7 coming down as it did, revolves in this article around the fact that explosives would have been picked up by seismographs monitoring ground vibrations on the morning of 9/11.
However are we not to think that military technology is not leaps and bounds ahead of current explosive usage. Any possible higher technology used on WTC7 would perhaps avoid seismographic detection. |
|
By:
Dobbo
I have mentioned Operation Able Danger before and this determines whether the CIA were tracking the terrorist cell into America and monitoring them at pilot school etc. Mohammed Atta had been the brains behind the terrorist attack on the USS Cole in Yemen Oct 2000. It was revealed after 9/11 that members of that operation had tracked Atta and others across to America. However they soon backtracked and people from that operation changed their accounts and as we know CIA documentation went down with WTC7. Perhaps through incompetence those involved in Able Danger took their eye off the ball on 9/11, NORAD failed to defend the air space on 9/11 4 times, and uniquely WTC7 collapsed due to office fires and building design faults. However one thing i am certain about is that there has been a cover up as to what the American agencies and elite knew prior to 9/11. Every now and then in history an event is played out to further an agenda. The `war on terror` is now a never ending war in which the Americans are in the driving seat for their biggest export which is warfare. Whether the cover up is to avoid knowledge of incompetence - then people high up in America should stillbe held accountable. If the cover up is to hide the fact that the U.S elite deliberately stood still on 9/11 and allowed it happen to further an agenda seems very possible to me. |
|
By:
Well until I see evidence of this higher technology Angel I'll have to remain firmly unconvinced. |
|
By:
xxx
|
|
By:
Weird,Cant log in cant place a bet but can post. Its a conspiracy I tell you.
|
|
By:
Yes that is the problem with cover ups Kelly, they cover it up
I see it abit likean insurance scam, you know when someone burns out their own car, sets fire to their own building etc and they cover up the truth to get the insurance money and live happily ever after. However in this case it`s the CIA covering up, they are the dogs bollux at this stuff. |
|
By:
so how come they can't fool people on the chit chat forum
 |
|
By:
maybe their sick of you logging in with no money dobbo
|
|
By:
Laryy Silverstein actually did very well out of his insurance company - he took them to court and was paid out twice because he said he should be, as there was 2 terror attacks which brought his buildings down..
Nigh on $5billion pay out  |
|
By:
Tobe
Polls around the world obviously give different percentages of people who the the U.S have lied about the official version. It`s almost half the population of the world who doubt the official version. You can still say anti American Islamic extremists were behind the attack, and still say there has been a cover up and procedures were set in place withprior knowledge. |
|
By:
here is the "independent" brent blanchard explaining ....dont know where to start with this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgGOlAWqHIg |
|
By:
go for it b'n'b gis a laugh
|
|
By:
Yes using conventional explosives Bread, but suggestions by theorists say nano thermite or other military technology?
Charlie Veitch already knew this and was a so easily persuaded to change his mind on a BBC doc, he was slaughtered online for his act in the doc.. |
|
By:
has anyone told Charlie that the Oompa Loompas and Willie Wonka are also not real?
in his current fragile mental state it could be enough to send him off the edge |
|
By:
Charlie Veitch is a stooge poly, have you seen him recently?
He has gone from right wing to left wing and then to conspiracist theorist to then BBC anti conspiracist theorist. He is a professional flip-flop agent. |
|
By:
so he's doesn't cling limpet-like to the same mindset for his entire life?
and isn't it also possible for a 9/11 inside job conspiracy theorist to be a stooge? what were the gains to be made by propagating that at the time? |
|
By:
So because of the same words he had heard before from an independent demolition expert with a lego set on a BBC doc, Charlie went from voicing with a megaphone around the Cities of the UK that 9/11 was an inside job and a high priest of the internet `truthers` movement, a friend of David Icke to believing the only conspiracy was U.S incompetence cover ups.
He completely bypassed the theory that the American elite had prior knowledge and allowed it to happen. Charlie is well read Poly, has a degree in sociology and was extremely aware of differing opinions regarding explosive usage. Brent Blanchard was not telling him anything he didn`t already now, the only difference was he dressed like a geek and played up to the camera`s a different submissive persona to everything he had previously been known for. He is a film maker, egotistical, suarve, articulate, an ex banker, middle class and not that nerd you witnessed on the BBC doc. He has concluded that conspiracy theorists are professional victims who have a hatred of high achievers and who were likely to have been bullied at school my disinfonaut bullsh1t alarm is ringing. |
|
By:
It's amazing how "They" ie the people who carry out such things as 9/11 are so bleedin efficient in their misdemeanors. They get away with it every time,100%, never taken to court, they must be very clever...maybe they should be put in charge as they're so bleedin good at organising things.
|
|
By:
Who are "they" Crispy?
|
|
By:
AG you seem to have genuinely believed all the fantasies and missed all points of intrigue in this 9/11 scam.
and you've been left holding the stupid bag while all the paid clowns in the circus have long since left town  |
|
By:
And will you ever elaborate on what fantasies i have believed or do i continuously have to prompt you by reminding you of your own gullibility in belief of the biggest fantasy of all time. The 6 days of creation.
Feel free to point out all of my fantasies Poly. |
|
By:
Also feel free to point out all of the points of intrigue you refer to as the 9/11 scam.
|
|
By:
And also stop talking in defensive riddles and cut to the chase.
|
|
By:
No riddles there, it was a fairly obvious analogy. But you do tend to see things that aren't there.
|
|
By:
Poly
It is you who feels the need to produce analogy and characters to explain your thoughts. Where have we seen this before, now let me think |
|
By:
Where have we seen this before, now let me think
You probably still struggling so let me help you think, we see it in virtually all scholarship and literature. |
|
By:
Analogy (from Greek ἀναλογία, analogia, "proportion"[1][2]) is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), or a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general. The word analogy can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often, though not necessarily, a similarity, as in the biological notion of analogy.
Niels Bohr's model of the atom made an analogy between the atom and the solar system. Analogy plays a significant role in problem solving such as, decision making, perception, memory, creativity, emotion, explanation and communication. It lies behind basic tasks such as the identification of places, objects and people, for example, in face perception and facial recognition systems. It has been argued that analogy is "the core of cognition".[3] Specific analogical language comprises exemplification, comparisons, metaphors, similes, allegories, and parables, but not metonymy. Phrases like and so on, and the like, as if, and the very word like also rely on an analogical understanding by the receiver of a message including them. Analogy is important not only in ordinary language and common sense (where proverbs and idioms give many examples of its application) but also in science, philosophy and the humanities. The concepts of association, comparison, correspondence, mathematical and morphological homology, homomorphism, iconicity, isomorphism, metaphor, resemblance, and similarity are closely related to analogy. In cognitive linguistics, the notion of conceptual metaphor may be equivalent to that of analogy. Analogy has been studied and discussed since classical antiquity by philosophers, scientists and lawyers. The last few decades have shown a renewed interest in analogy, most notably in cognitive science. |