911 conspiracy theories. Who believes them?

Conspiracies and Religion go hand in hand.
My betting is if you believe in religion you'll believe most of the conspiracies.
Easily led is the key.

The official explanation for WTC 7's demise is every bit as risible as the most outlandish of conspiracy theories.  How anyone can watch a steel-framed building collapse symmetrically in free fall and propound such a global failure was fire-induced is astonishing.  Ridicule what you read on internet websites by all means, but don't doubt the evidence of your own eyes.

Manhunt now on Sky Atlantic

Poker - you going on about bacon & eggs & WTC7, still not sure if you believe 4 planes crashed on 911 or not.

Still as long as we know what colour/color socks a dead fireman wore.

So poker how many planes do you believe crashed on 911?

Have you let the authorities know this Pm.
Surprised they've ignored it.

1. The building collapsed symmetrically.

2. The building collapsed at free fall speed.

The first point means that all the steel supports failed at exactly the same time.  The second means that this failure wasn't in the form of bending and buckling, they were severed completely.  Does that really sound like the work of a fire to anyone?

Seems okay to me.

Mexico wrote:

So poker how many planes do you believe crashed on 911?

I believe four planes crashed, sir.

The World Trade Centre was a target for terrorists and an Engish bloke who worked in the
building told the owners that a plane could easily be flown into the towers and destroy
the buildings...

Really, Akabula?  You honestly believe that fire could sever all the steel supports simultaneously?  No transition from weakening, bending and buckling in varying parts of the building, just straight to every one of them being completely severed all at the same time?

They would all be weakened and as soon as one went the rest would follow in the blink of an eye.

My Dad who is now dead was an Architect and he reckoned that it what happened he explained to me in detail
but I forget exactly but he made it sound plausible.

Akabula wrote:

They would all be weakened and as soon as one went the rest would follow in the blink of an eye.

That, sir, is just plain wrong.  There is a huge amount of empirical evidence, not to mention scientific principle, that proves otherwise.

Its all to do with weight and gravity

Poker , the big story that day was 4 planes crashing. What passenger 87 had for breakfast or what happened to WTC7 appears on page 34 of the newspaper.

If you know who controlled the 4 planes then please share - that is actually the story of the day.

Completely feasible Pm. time to move on.

Mexico.

I consider the what passenger 87 had for breakfast stories to be straw man arguments of similar ilk to holographic aircraft, laser energy rays etc.  There is a whole host of things I don't know about the events of that tragic day, who controlled the planes being just one of many.  What I do know, however, is that when a building collapses symmetrically in free fall it has not done so because of fire.

You are correct that WTC 7 is very much a secondary story in the eyes of the public, but it should be right up there front and centre in my view.

It isn't completely feasible, Akabula, it's risible.  You might be right about moving on, of course, but many would vehemently disagree.

Yep poker, we all know you believe WTC7 is really important. You are in danger of sounding like Tom Baker in Blackadder where opinion is devided about what is important.

If you have something to say regarding who controlled the 4 planes which crashed then please share. That is actually the story of the day.

If the official report concerning WTC 7 were to be believed nobody would ever build a steel-framed skyscraper again, much less be prepared to live or work in one.  All the more laughable, then, that NIST refused to publish their scientific data for peer review on the grounds that it would jeopardize public safety!

Mexico.

I have told you what I know about who controlled the aircraft: nothing.  Anything I might expound on the matter, therefore, would be pure conjecture.  To suggest that this ignorance should somehow diminish my arguments concerning WTC 7 is unfair, who gave you the right to determine what is important?

I am also unfamiliar with the Tom Baker reference, but it sounds like another ad hominem argument to me.

No Captain Rum, you carry on going on about the importance of WTC7 & ignore the main story.

After all "opinion is devided" as to what events are important that day.

Some people may think who controlled the 4 planes is important, some may think bacon & eggs are important & others WTC7.

I don't ignore the main story at all, I simply do not wish to engage in a debate without the necessary knowledge or expertise to argue my case.  And it is you, sir, who seem to be in the business of obfuscation and ignoring things.

It seems everyone has retired for the night.  Many thanks for your company this evening, gentlemen.  Good night.

Maybe some aluminum from the TT,s got into wtc 7 and exploded  again PM ?

I can,t believe that pearl harbour was a conspiracy

The skill of the reported amateur pilots who on there first approach got it bang on target, not one but both of them, a bit fishy i think plus  a professional pilot mentioned this in one report, from a cessna to airliner id go for remote control

Yep mi6 plenty of evidence to support remote control. After all a "professional polit" OMG - WOW a "professional pilot" thoufgh these guys had some skill & even mentioned it in a report.
That is enough fir me - fair play to those guys on one of the planes for overpowering the remote control pilot sitting hundreds of miles away.

Planes are actually designed to land on runways, they are designed to be steered. But if one "professional pilot" thogght it was good then we may as well forget about any other evidence and ask the "professional pilot" who was not there what happened.

Nice link to the report this "professional pilot" wrote mi6.

ok how many people will refrain from airing there opinions from fear of retribution ie job promotion ect
mexico knows where his bread is buttered quick get rid of the thermite damaged steel ect

Mi6 - you have still failed to provide any information about this 1 "professional pilot" or a link to his/her report.

Yep based on the opinion of this one "professional pilot" you believe the 4 planes were flown by remote control?


So how many "professional pilots" are the on this planet? What % of the universe of "professional pilots" is the one you believe?

Any chance you could provide a link to the report this "professional pilot" wrote? If this report is the only evidence to support your theory, I suspect you must have read it a few times?

one middle class pilot with no personal interest is easier to believe than yourself Mexico

to think a link is needed any pilot would do

Mi6, you have kept details of this one "professional pilot" secret. How do we know he/she is middle class with no personal interest. Is that just another bit of info you have made up?

So what did this one "professional pilot" say in this report? Come on let us see thes Magic report. It must be good if one report by one "professional pilot" is enough evidence to prove 4 planes were controlled by remote control.

Please shar this report MI6.

Btw you failed to explain what % of all "professional pilots" your one represents. How many "professional pilots" are there on this planet?

what magic reort it was in a programme which i fail to remember,
imagine the scenario you are a terrorist with  a minimum of experience you take control of the plane exactly where. where exactly would be your first concern. and remembering you are a rookie you have to pinpoint your target from where, why should i go on

report

Hi Pokermonster. I'm afraid neither of your 'facts' are correct. They are quite simply lies repeated to the gullible. To start, no one can exactly indicate the speed of collapse, so any statement giving a definitive time is a straight up lie. WTC7 also did not fall symetrically, the middle sags in first, and it topples forward on the way down.

Here is a quote from the senior fireman on the scene:

Hayden: We were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Now, what is it in your history that gives you, a random internetter, more knowledge than this trained, senior fireman who stood metres away from the building? This is always the rub, CTers have the genuine belief that they know better. It doesn't even strike them as fantastical to think so, they are just sure of it.

As for remote control planes! Brilliant that this one is still getting thrown about :)

Have little look at the difficulties of attaching remote technology from 14 years ago, onto jets designed in the 80s. Let me know your findings!

piece of piss micropcessor is quuite old

By late 1959, the only spy plane available to the US was the U-2. Spy satellites were another year and half away, and the SR-71 Blackbird was still on the drawing board.[13] In such climate, concerns appeared about the negative publicity from the foreseen capture of US airmen on the communist territory. Pilots' fears were realized in May 1960, when U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers was shot down over the USSR.[13] Not surprisingly, work intensified on an unmanned drone which would be capable of penetrating deep into enemy territory, and return with precise military intelligence. Within three months of the downing of the U-2, the highly classified UAV (called RPV back then) program was born, under the code name of Red Wagon.[13]

Just after the incident involving the US Navy destroyers USS Maddox (DD-731) and USS Turner Joy (DD-951), and even before it escalated into the presidential "Tonkin Gulf Resolution" and war with North Vietnam, the USAF had issued an immediate order for the UAV units to deploy immediately for Southeast Asia on any available C-130s or C-133s.[14] The first birds (drones) would be Ryan 147Bs (AQM-34s) piggy-backed on C-130s, after completing their missions they would be parachuted for recovery near Taiwan.

USAF drones (UAVs) of the Strategic Air Command deployed to the Republic of South Vietnam (RVN) as the 4025th Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron, 4080th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing in 1964. In 1966 the unit was redesignated as the 350th Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron, 100th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing.

The Squadron operated Ryan Firebees, launching them from modified DC-130A Hercules transport aircraft, normally two drones under each wing, each Hercules carrying 4 drones total. The UAVs deployed parachutes upon completing their missions and were usually recovered by helicopters which were tasked for those missions.

The North Vietnamese Air Force (NVAF) utilized U.S. Drone flights to practice their aerial combat skills, and although claiming several successful interceptions, only 6 are known to have been shot down by NVAF MiGs.[15][16]
sixties proto types were interesting

easy peasy you old folk and your bull

Hi mi6.

Thanks for that information. I am unsure of its relevance, perhaps you could explain?

Unfortunately, 757s and 767s dont operate 'fly-by-wire' (you knew that, right?), so you are suggesting a remote control system that could control hydraulics. It's an interesting, if flawed theory.

It also requires that the pilots to do nothing to attempt to regain control, or radio anyone about their loss of control.

Maybe you believe there were no pilots.

Which would mean you have to believe there were no flight crew, to notice the missing pilots.

To which it would follow that you believe there were no passengers, as they would notice a missing flight crew.

And this would indicate you are insane and in need of fresh air.

What do I believe Crystal?  Mostly I believe in sex, drugs and rock & roll, but as far as conspiracy theorists go I norrmally think they are paranoid nutters...

...BUT

I do now have many doubts about the third building to fall down on 911.  I didn't even know about it until late in the day and as pokermonsters logical arguments always stick out as intelligent amongst the usual sticks and stones crap on these sort of boards I watched some of the youtube links advertised.  If you try and sort the wheat from the chaff, some of the conspiracy theorists talking about the third building actually come across as more sane than the spittle-flecked anti-truthers.

Torque, perhaps you could check my post from above and divulge any 'evidence' you have found that trumps a fireman at the scene explicitly stating it will collapse?

you mean to say motorised hydraulic systems are not  used its like power steering from your car of course they are a part of the planes control system so easy to modify thirty years after the man on the moon ffs

I've got feck all evidence mate, there's no point trying to engage me in an argument about it because I've only watched a few videos recently so know next to nothing about any of it.  As I said, I normally think conspiracy theories are nonsense.  The videos I watched about the third building though don't come across as the work of nutters in fairness, the people on it clearly weren't paranoid idiots, they were professional people like your fireman - professors, engineers, even a nobel prize winner!  It would be arrogant not to take them seriously don't you think?

Later, I'm going to build a house of cards and blow on it. Then I'm going to ping one, and when they ALL collapse, it'll be proof that aliens control my mind using my kettle to amplify zog waves.

What do the "truthers" think of this I wonder?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3286908/Is-Planet-X-Mysterious-fiery...

Oct 23, 2015 -- 11:41PM, Pokermonster wrote:

Mexico wrote:So poker how many planes do you believe crashed on 911?I believe four planes crashed, sir.

Booooooom nap 1.01 landed ....

Mexico WTC7 is important. If the official line on how this collapsed is concocted then how can you trust the rest of the report?

I don't get the joke there breadnbutter.  What am I missing?

MW

The story of the day is that 4 planes crashed into various buildings.

WTC7 is not important.


We aphave heard that mi6 believes these planes were flown by remote control. Apparently one "professional pilot" mentioned it in a lost report. I for one whole have t consider what 0.001% of "professional pilots" say in a lost report.

What was eaten for breakfast or what happened to WTC7 is a sideshow, it is not important. The story is that 4 planes crashed, not who had "bacon & eggs" in WTC7.

If you have any report that the planes did not crash or you have evidence of who controlled then then please share. It is well over a decade since 911 so plenty of time to publish a theory & show supporting evidence.

I take it some don't believe there were four planes?

wtc7 is important though mexico, because if that was proved to be not as reported it would cast doubt on all the rest.

Torqu, if you have a theory as to what happened then please share rather then wittering on about an unimportant sideshow.


so, how many planes crashed? Who controlled them? Can we stick to the main story?

Don't tell me what the main story is, it's my fecking thread in case you hadn't noticed.  Now jog on you pompous tool.

Torqu..

This is not "your thread" in case you hadn't notice. Are you claiming ownership of everything posted in this thread? Do you really believe this thread is "your thread"

Being rude to other people does not give you ownership of the thread. Hope that helps?

Now stick to the main story of 911.

I have every right to decide what the main story is on my thread thank you very much. Being rude to other people!  Feck me, you've got some cheek mate!

If you want to talk about the four planes all the time, start your own fecking thread.  Here's an idea, you can title it THE FOUR PLANES OF 911.

Go on, I dare you.  Start a thread called THE FOUR PLANES OF 911 and I'll post up my thoughts on the matter to keep you happy.

Torqu, I've already explained your mistake. This is not "your thread". You have zero ownership rights to this thread.

Being rude won't give you ownership. It is not your thread.

Pretty simple really Torqu. I assume you understand your repeated mistake.

Give it up, Mexico. You know full well that George Bush flew two planes by remote control into the towers. Then he fired a missile into the Pentagon and pretended a plane crashed there. Then he blew the towers up. He blew up a field in Pennsylvania and pretended a plane crashed there. Then the cunning devil waited seven hours and blew up a building nobody had ever heard of, a building which hadn't been hit by a plane or missile.

You know it's true.

Going round in circles and stuff posted as fact because someone posted a vid on the net.

How come then, Einstein, you seem to think you own the rights to the thread?  Keeping on telling people to stick your idea of the main story?  What about your repeated mistake you prize plum?

Masher - you could be correct there. Must be a few you tube videos to back up that theory.

Torqu. I have not claimed to own the rights to this thread. I do not believe I own the rights to this thread. I also do not believe you own this thread. It is not "your thread"

Come on Torqu, that is not difficult to understand, I'm sure you can grasp it?

I understand it perfectly mate.  You've been caught out, you've embarrassed yourself, and you're now trying to shift attention to something else to save face.  If you don't like people talking about something which is not YOUR idea of the main story on a thread I started, start your own fecking thread OR stop criticising people for talking about what they want to talk about.

Not hard to grasp is it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUdJ41J_L8o

And then there is this -Dubya gave it away when he made virtually no reaction when he was told of the events taking place in New York.

I would say that that clip suggests the opposite.

People see what they want to see. It'll never change.

Torqu, I am sorry that you can't grasp the simple concept of that this thread is not your thread.
Why claim it is your thread?

I can assure you that what passenger 75 had for breakfast is not the main story of 911. You starting a thread on a betting site does not give you ownership of 911 (it does not even give you ownership of this thread).

Why would you claim this is your thread Torque if you understand perfectly it is not?
Are there many aspects in life which you struggle to understand?


Are you aware you have zero rights of ownership regarding this thread? How exactly will you stop people criticising people on this thread?
Will you just be rude again?

He has things on his mind. At that point he has three buildings and a field to blow up, plus a missile to fire.

Feck me, you're dim.  Best you just jog on mate, you're stinking the place up with your repetitive nonsense.  And if you must keep on replying, try to speed up a bit.

I like your thinking masher. You seem to have solved this puzzle.

I knew the truth is out there.
Nice one

Lol torque. You are calling somebody else "dim"

Bravo old chap - top bombing. Isn't that ironic.


BTW do you actually understand this is not your thread? You can be rude to people if you want to but you don't have ownership to control what other people post.
It really is quite a simple concept Torque.

Hypocrite alert ^^^

That means a person who advocates something but does the opposite by the way.

Mexico give it a rest ffs.
We all know that in the true meaning of the word that Torqu doesn't 'own' this thread but as a means of identifying the thread we would refer to it as Torqu's thread now move on please.
Away back to the I love Pedants forum.

Looks like Mexico's meds have finally kicked in thank god, the dozy fecker is dimmer than an energy-efficient lightbulb.  I can't stand hypocritical cyber bullies, they should be wound up at every opportunity.

I called it my thread Aka because I knew it would wind up that idiot mexico, who clearly regarded it as his thread. 

Still being rude Torque?
Are LED light bulbs dim Torque?


Aka, Torqu clearly does not understand the concept, You may love him but his rudeness is hardly enough to compensate for a lack of intelligence .

The funniest thing is, something he didn't seem to grasp, is that I pretty much agree with him on 99% of the whole 911 thing.

NURSE!  He's out of bed again!

Anything useful to add Torque - or just carry on being rude?

Yes, don't confuse the red ones with the yellow ones.

Perhaps you should log off again to make us think you'd gone?  Then you can come back later to have the last word of the evening.

On my thread.

Well, his light has gone out again (in more ways than one).  I wonder if he'll be back?

Bacontrouts poor attempt at keeping the thread on planes and remote tech was rancid but since i rise so easily here stick this in your pipe and smoke it .    http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/08/07/flight-control-boeings-uninterruptible...     Not that it is of any importance here but it does show your knowledge to be of a very low quality and falling short of the high standard needed on CC ,bring a knife to a gun fight and your gunna lose .

@akabula 24 Oct 15 22:53 "I would say that that clip suggests the opposite. the 3 minute response of someone who refers to a 40 minute tape as a "clip". Come on, surely you can do better than that.

the terrorists were said to be all killed ,if that is so then how did six of them return to life

Opinions are like RSoles ...everybody's got one.
You have seperate fact from fiction !
Go on YouTube ...see what the Industry experts say.

Not so easy as there is a disinformation industry ,perhaps you could post a link or recommend one  ?

Here, in under an hour, James Corbett who's "Corbett Report" blogs are always well worth a look, has analysed the insider trading and money trail for 9/11, and frankly shows what a laughing stock the mugs like Mexico really are, tring to cling to the pathetic illusion that arab terrorists under the control of Osama bin laden perpetrated this crime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3xgjxJwedA

Al Dente  • October 25, 2015 1:59 AM GMT 
@akabula 24 Oct 15 22:53 "I would say that that clip suggests the opposite. the 3 minute response of someone who refers to a 40 minute tape as a "clip". Come on, surely you can do better than that.

I was referring to the clip when Bush was told.

p and q You're the mug m8.

"Not so easy as there is a disinformation industry ,perhaps you could post a link or recommend one"
To many to list ...
Welcome to our phucked up world

Hundreds of thousands of people killed because of 9 11

Hundreds of millions of dollars made by some because of 9 11

I hope that there is a heaven and a hell

Look for the "smoking Gun"...irrefutable evidence !
You could start with
"cut columns" & massive amounts of "nano thermite explosive residue" found at the site

I'm sure Zach does



https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OA1Pe4cViTM