911, Conspiracy or Terrorist attack.

[God Father]

k so when everything went down on 9/11 I was too young to think much of it (like 12) but now that I'm older I ponder upon things... And the more research I do the more it makes me think.. I watched about 2 hours of YouTube vids and I am quite convinced that there is def something more than most people know about 9/11... I strongly suggest everyone goes to YouTube and watches in plane sight parts 1-8 I can assure u that it will make u think twice about eveything.


Like what's the flash right before the planes hit? What's on the bottom of the one plane and was it a military plane? How does a 757 only make an 18 foot hole in the pentagon? And why could they not find any pieces of a plane? How did the towers collapse when jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the steel that it was built with? Why did bush say he say the first plane hit on tv when clearly that's impossible? Why is there only one shifty camera angle of the pentagon explosion when the pentagon is one of the highest security places in America? These are just a few questions I can think of right off the top of my head... Like I said just watch in plane sight 1-8

 

[tofurocks]

The owner of this site believes the conspiracies, so he will back you up.
I used to believe them, but there is a far more convincing opposing side to your argument.
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
A few hours, debunks all the theories.
Come back if you have any more doubts and I will see what I can do

 

[God Father]

That is a bit convincing. But Please answer these for me.
1) whats the flash right before the plane hits? its clear the plane had not even hit the building yet when the flash happened

2) whats on the bottom of the plane?

3) why was there many people that said that the second plane was not a commercial plane but it was a solid grey plan with only one marking which was blue with a circle... thats not american airlines logo...

4) how does a 757 with a wignspan of 124 only make an 18 foot wide hole? and if its 44 something foot tall why is the roof still in contact in pictures before the outter wall collapsed?

5) why was there no left overs of the plane after the wreck? no wing, engine, luggage, seats, landing gear, NOTHING!!! how is it possible that an entire plane just disappered?

6) why is there only one video surveillance of the plane hitting the pentagon when there was another 8 cameras that should have seen it? and how come the video there is no plane at all just an explosion?

7) there is a picture that was only released one time and then the government never let it get released again... this picture was the two towers burning and you can see there is clearly a seperate cloud of smoke coming from the lower floors? what is it?

 

[tofurocks]

That is a bit convincing. But Please answer these for me.
1) whats the flash right before the plane hits? its clear the plane had not even hit the building yet when the flash happened

2) whats on the bottom of the plane?

3) why was there many people that said that the second plane was not a commercial plane but it was a solid grey plan with only one marking which was blue with a circle... thats not american airlines logo...

4) how does a 757 with a wignspan of 124 only make an 18 foot wide hole? and if its 44 something foot tall why is the roof still in contact in pictures before the outter wall collapsed?

5) why was there no left overs of the plane after the wreck? no wing, engine, luggage, seats, landing gear, NOTHING!!! how is it possible that an entire plane just disappered?

6) why is there only one video surveillance of the plane hitting the pentagon when there was another 8 cameras that should have seen it? and how come the video there is no plane at all just an explosion?

7) there is a picture that was only released one time and then the government never let it get released again... this picture was the two towers burning and you can see there is clearly a seperate cloud of smoke coming from the lower floors? what is it?

You should really watch the movie, but I will answer by intuition here, as I have not seen the film in a long time.

1. Reflections from the building? Cameras? I have not actually seen the video you speak of, but a building reflection seems very plausible.
2. I have not viewed your film yet. Check the comments on youtube, they usually clear things up a few pages down.
3. People were confused and were willing to be influenced into answering incorrectly. It was only a few people, also, out of hundreds (or thousands) of witnesses.
4.The plane disintegrated + collapsed as it hit the Pentagon. And I saw the picture of the hole, it was far larger than 18 feet.
5. There were, you can see pictures of people removing wreckage of the plane from the Pentagon. Aluminum remains are also visible.
6. The video I provided should clear that up. It is also not necessary for all videos to be released.
7.
a) Could have been shopp'd.
b) The fire spread.

My answers are not very complete, please watch the "Screw Loose Change" video for a full explanation.

 

[Zombieland]

Alot of people think that it was a conspiracy, but ther eis always conspiracies when major things in history happen. There will always be someone out there to create some sort of contraversy.

People say that it was demolition blasts. But i watched a documentary, there was a major demolition team on site talking about what they thought, they said there would have to be ATLEAST 3000! Look at the number again 3000! People to go in and set up the explosives over quite a long period of time "don't remember how much time". With that many people being involved, (them not being the only ones, not counting the people that planned it and so on) not everyone could keep there mouths shut.

So the demolition theory itself there biggest theory is a crock.

The reason it fell straight down was because after the fuel burned the pillars long enough it collapsed after softening. They say that it wouldn't be possible for that to happen like that it wouldn't be strong enough. But again in the documentary they show them burning a metal pillar like the one in the Trade Centers with weight in the middle and it indeed collapsed. So that pillar had millions of pounds of weight on it. It's no wonder it collapsed.

I'm not saying i trust this country for a second but chances on them doing that are very VERY slim due to the amount of work they'd have to put into it. If anything i think that, we knew about it, and did nothing as an excuse to invade iraq and get oil.

 

[blindkilla]

It's not a conspiracy, the guy who started all that nonsense said he did it for fun.

 

[Pkpkpk]

That is a bit convincing. But Please answer these for me.
1) whats the flash right before the plane hits? its clear the plane had not even hit the building yet when the flash happened

2) whats on the bottom of the plane?

3) why was there many people that said that the second plane was not a commercial plane but it was a solid grey plan with only one marking which was blue with a circle... thats not american airlines logo...

4) how does a 757 with a wignspan of 124 only make an 18 foot wide hole? and if its 44 something foot tall why is the roof still in contact in pictures before the outter wall collapsed?

5) why was there no left overs of the plane after the wreck? no wing, engine, luggage, seats, landing gear, NOTHING!!! how is it possible that an entire plane just disappered?

6) why is there only one video surveillance of the plane hitting the pentagon when there was another 8 cameras that should have seen it? and how come the video there is no plane at all just an explosion?

7) there is a picture that was only released one time and then the government never let it get released again... this picture was the two towers burning and you can see there is clearly a seperate cloud of smoke coming from the lower floors? what is it?

You ask these questions like your an expert at all of the above.

Do you know everything about planes and explosions? An average person, including me does not. If it was not an attack don't you think someone would have brought it up before? Possibly an enemy? Why would we blow up our own building? And if it was our own government than wouldnt they be smarter than to use their own plane?

 

[God Father]

By the look of your avatar I could Assume you are a 16 year old kid, telling me i do not know.

Trust me im 23 years old, ive looked into this stuff alot, ive watched films and documentaries on it.


It doesn't take a genious to ask How come the hole created by the collision From a 747 jet, one of the biggest in the industry today, be Considerably smaller then the jet itself, Actually its smaller then the whole front end of the plane.


1) Well think this way, over 1000 Jewish and Us men and women took the day "off" wierd don't you think?

2) Why not, Its good for politics, good for the government If you think about all the donations, Funds and etc.

3) Thats how they convice the us public it was a terror biased attack

 

[Pkpkpk]

By the look of your avatar I could Assume you are a 16 year old kid, telling me i do not know.

Trust me im 23 years old, ive looked into this stuff alot, ive watched films and documentaries on it.


It doesn't take a genious to ask How come the hole created by the collision From a 747 jet, one of the biggest in the industry today, be Considerably smaller then the jet itself, Actually its smaller then the whole front end of the plane.


1) Well think this way, over 1000 Jewish and Us men and women took the day "off" wierd don't you think?

2) Why not, Its good for politics, good for the government If you think about all the donations, Funds and etc.

3) Thats how they convice the us public it was a terror biased attack

Oh boy! 7 whole years, your an expert by now. So your saying the plane did not hit? Because obviously something hit it. What made the hole then?

Also it actually does take an expert to calculate those kind of things so don't try. Your taking your facts off a site trying to prove to you something. That doesn't work too well IMO.


3 - No you said that the plane they used wasn't a passenger one. Why would the US gov. use a military plane to fly into their own building? They didn't.

2 - You know how much those buildings cost? Lol...

1 - That's weird... but then how many people work there? And if they had been told not to come I'm positive it would have leaked lol. It's not like they whispered in the Jewish/Americans not to go to work. And that's if that statistic is even true.

 

[God Father]

Yes, They might have used their own plane to fly into there, Why? Good question. But If it was a passanger plane, then how come No box was was found and there was no pieces of the plane, or any bodys.

2) billions, I know. Do you know how much funding the us has gotten from the us people and foreign countries? BIllions as well.

3) The statistic is true, They have logs of who didn't show up to work, it was over 1000 people, And yeah it could have got leaked. But it didn't So No argument there

 

[tofurocks]

I already said, there was rubble found in the Pentagon, and the plane got broken up + buried between the hit and the collapse of the building in the case of the WTC.

 

[God Father]

alright, wheres the box at?

 

The owner of this site believes the conspiracies, so he will back you up.
I used to believe them, but there is a far more convincing opposing side to your argument.
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
A few hours, debunks all the theories.
Come back if you have any more doubts and I will see what I can do

It's pretty impressive that they manage to convince you that newton's laws of motion are less likely to remain true than a government is to lie.

I wonder if they managed to debunk the independently verified existence of unburnt thermite chips in the wtc dust.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

 

[tofurocks]

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM is not a reliable enough source in my opinion, and it doesn't have a reference to a Univeresity verification or even a trustworthy verification of any kind.
However, my real interest lies in the thread here:
http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=370752
So if you could reply it would be much appreciated.

 

[i noob killer i]

It was a terrorist attack we all know that case closed. ive looked into the conspiracy theorys and this . its impossible terrorists did it .

 

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM is not a reliable enough source in my opinion, and it doesn't have a reference to a Univeresity verification or even a trustworthy verification of any kind.

Well so what? The this is just a blatant appeal to authority.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

And it's not even a very good appeal to authority, considering that most of the good science of the last 500 years didn't even come out of universities.

 

[FreedomFight]

It's pretty impressive that they manage to convince you that newton's laws of motion are less likely to remain true than a government is to lie.

Eh. I'm not going to start with this again.

independently verified existence

That's entirely questionable. They didn't document collecting any of their evidence properly (as far as I can tell).

of unburnt thermite chips in the wtc dust.

Last I checked, they haven't even been fully capable of testing the materials properly; they only singled out rough compositions. The compositions were highly variant from sample to sample and in my opinion,they appeared graphically actually quite different the military grade thermite graph they showed.

Finally, I just have to call out the bullshit on the essay you linked. They referred to thermite SEVERAL times as an EXPLOSIVE material, when really, it's not that explosive at all. If any conspiracy were to be generated with thermite, it would be the use of it to cause high heat to weaken the beams... not the outward dust plume that the conspirators are complaining about.

In the end, this whole thermite deal is just weak. It's a non-explosive substance found in a questionable manner and verified with questionable testing.

 

Eh. I'm not going to start with this again.


That's entirely questionable. They didn't document collecting any of their evidence properly (as far as I can tell).


Last I checked, they haven't even been fully capable of testing the materials properly; they only singled out rough compositions. The compositions were highly variant from sample to sample and in my opinion,they appeared graphically actually quite different the military grade thermite graph they showed.

Finally, I just have to call out the bullshit on the essay you linked. They referred to thermite SEVERAL times as an EXPLOSIVE material, when really, it's not that explosive at all. If any conspiracy were to be generated with thermite, it would be the use of it to cause high heat to weaken the beams... not the outward dust plume that the conspirators are complaining about.

In the end, this whole thermite deal is just weak. It's a non-explosive substance found in a questionable manner and verified with questionable testing.

Really this is just moving the goal-posts & prejudice. You have entirely different standards of evidence and reasonable doubt for the two sides of this argument.

You are willing to accept a highly infeasible government official story about people in a cave flying to the otherside of the world and entirely leveling 3 buildings with two planes, and somehow, magically, their passports are found in the dust.

You are prepared to believe this seemingly without question.

But the pile of physical evidence indicating explosive detonations, as well as the video evidence, is never good enough, no matter how much there is.

I mean seriously, the argument in favour of your position is an appeal to authority.
The rational skeptic would have identified at the outset that the leveling of buildings is not a normal occurance, and, in the case of steel buildings, has never been documented to have happened as a result of fire.

 

[FreedomFight]

The rational skeptic would have identified at the outset that the leveling of buildings is not a normal occurance, and, in the case of steel buildings, has never been documented to have happened as a result of fire.

Terrorists attacks aren't normal occurrence. Government conspiracies aren't either. Normality is highly irrelevant. Rather, the lack of similar situations (large planes crashing into large, steel buildings of that magnitude) gives the conspirators no point of reference. There is no empirical model sufficient enough to say "That's how it should've happened!".

In fact, all I hear is the same repeated fallacy. Here's a video of a demolition, here's the video of the tower falling... they look alike, therefore it's a demolition!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

You have entirely different standards of evidence and reasonable doubt for the two sides of this argument.

This is true, but also neither completely unwarranted or unreasonable. I find the governmental "motive" for this conspiracy to be reasonable, while the risk of exposure to be unreasonably high for them to undertake. Given the position of such an "ingenious" government as the conspirators like to say, I find it silly that you'd believe they'd allow evidence to leak to lowly civilians such as yourselves. That is, the civilian involvement and scope of this conspiracy would have to be unreasonably high - blowing up a building AND crashing a plane would be a ridiculous amount of risk.

So yes, I would require evidence from the conspirators to be beyond reasonable doubt, and accept the given story until otherwise proven. In a purist debate, this may be a somewhat irrational stance. In reality, opinions shift the given burden of proof required(For instance, you cite Newtonian physics here, and then magically cast them away in your free-energy thread).

You are willing to accept a highly infeasible government official story about people in a cave flying to the otherside of the world and entirely leveling 3 buildings with two planes, and somehow, magically, their passports are found in the dust.

Yes actually. I'd rather accept that there are Arabs in the world that can fly planes, then the possibility that the government trained a group of cave people to hijack the planes, and managed to pop in a few tons of explosives to seal the deal, all going unnoticed.

Then again, this entire feasibility debate is a result of opinion that established empirical evidence.

But the pile of physical evidence indicating explosive detonations, as well as the video evidence, is never good enough, no matter how much there is.

Quite honestly, all I see is a building collapsing and a large plume of dust. I see pictures of crystals and videos screaming thermite. I don't see any physical evidence of modern explosives (THERMITE IS NOT AN EXPLOSIVE). Quite honestly, all I see is various quantities of aluminum oxide(a relatively common substance) paraded on a variety of graphs.

I mean seriously, the argument in favour of your position is an appeal to authority.

Not really...

 

[Greggy]

A few questions I heard that I feel I can supply more information to.
I believe the conspiracy.

Why would we blow up our own building?

That question is really simple to answer. The government needed support from us to attack Iraq. What better way to mobilize our country together and get us to support the war than framing the enemy.

Another possible situation: The paint, on the building, and the metal, has an extra ingredient to it. Making it highly flammable, once the plain hit and the first spark ignited it went downhill from there. Yes this would have taken a while to do, but who would be suspicious of people painting? But it can't be proven, yet.

That is pretty much all I have to add.