Just.. watch this

Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
I haven't watched it yet, but I already believe it. They needed a reason for war, and this was as good as any. Its Pearl Harbor all over again.
 
Member
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
Discord Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2005
Messages
434
Best answers
0
I watched 15 min of it and they actually have some strong points there. Very interesting. Nice find but its a bit long.
 
The Duke of Juke
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,852
Best answers
0
I love how conspiracy theories count on the government keeping huge secrets from everyone, but accidently forgetting to put windows on the planes they created just for 9-11 or forget to blend the "extra equipment" underneath the planes in so people don't notice it.

Just sayin.
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,960
Best answers
0
Keep watching. There is a lot more convincing evidence at the end.
 
New Member
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
842
Best answers
0
Its Pearl Harbor all over again.
Are you saying the government faked the Pearl Harbor bombings too? Don't make me laugh. When disasters involve the deaths of innocents, they always attract conspiracies because it's easier for people to believe some complex bull**** than to get over the facts of what actually happened.

For every retarded 9/11 conspiracy video made, there are a thousand articles discrediting everything the person says.

This thread needs to be closed, this topic has already been discussed before and it only leads to flaming.
 
Lost in space
Banned
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
3,211
Best answers
0
-.- Didn't look like a commercial plane my ass. My father lost his friend due to 9/11. Both captains, and he knew some of the flight attendants. These conspiracies are a bunch of ****.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Mar 6, 2003
Messages
3,999
Best answers
0
Tassadar said:
This thread needs to be closed, this topic has already been discussed before and it only leads to flaming.
What's up with people saying, "ya this topic needs to be closed cuz i say so lolz o yea im not a mod", recently? If you don't like the topic, don't post in it. If a topic needs to be closed, the moderators will handle it.
 
New Member
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
842
Best answers
0
Well, the last time I looked at the Acceptable Usage Policy political discussions were not allowed in the forums, as it leads to flaming. I'm mearly stating what is in the AUP, and I don't believe you need to have special privileges (I.E. moderator) to do so. As such there is no where in the AUP that says only moderators may suggest the legitimate closing of a topic.
9/11 conspiracy theories are obviously politically motivated, and cannot be discussed in a proper manner without bringing up politics. I'm not suggesting the thread to be closed because I don't believe in the theories, I'm suggesting it to be closed because I don't believe the topic can be discussed without bringing in politics or the war or other things that could cause flaming and/or violation of the AUP. However, I'm aware it's not my decision, so I'll leave the thread peacefully...

No it's not directly against the rules for someone to cite the AUP, however all really does is create spam and off-topic posts. The AUP sets the guidelines for moderators to act upon. You don't see us warning every user who double posts do you? As well, I believe the AUP was talking about threads such as "Democrats vs Republicans, who are you voting for?" moreso than "Watch this vid it has some interesting points to it".

As for suggesting a thread be closed, it is considered to be spam and rogue moderation. Neither of which are smiled upon. This thread seems to be doing fine so far with the exception of the last couple of off-topic posts, I see no reason to close it. Should there start to be flames in here, it will be dealt with. As you said, it's really not your decision to make.
- Pain
 
Moving with Sonic Speed
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
4,532
Best answers
0
Keep the discussions in here about the evidence and avoid the political repurcussions of the destructions.

I like the evidence put forward in this video, particularly those about the jet pieces found at the pentagon, and I'd like to see them discredited.
 
Lost in space
Banned
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
3,211
Best answers
0
Man this is funny. The more I watch this the more I laugh at it. And the guys stupidity. "so what can do this to the pentagon blah blah, a cruise missle" o.0 Last I checked a cruise missile has a jet on it, omg, what was that? A jet you say? What's on an airplane, A jet. So that means that a cruise missle can go as fast as a jet propelled plane, so any commercial plane. 500 mph roughly.

Not only that a C-130 is a military plane, there are a **** load. There are a lot, i'm not surprised one was "circling around" it's mainly there for rescue missions etc. It's slow and only goes about 200 miles an hour, i doubt that even if this sorry excuse for a conspiracy was true- they government is not retarded enough to do some stupid ****. Not only that, i have pictures of the pentagon, it's funny how there is a massive gigantic airplane smashed to bits and on flames.


Hooray for pictures after the plane was cleaned up

"omg it sounded like a missle!" "it was going to fast to be an air plane" missles have jets on them, the same jets on commercial air liners. They go the same speed. Missiles sound like planes, they are dumb asses. If you interview a thousand different people you are going to get a thousand different replies and sides of the story. Don't listen to interviewed citizens.

::EDIT:: hey let's confiscate some tapes from a gas station. you can't show these to anyone, but you can release 5 frames. 5 frames, and make sure that you don't show the airplane. Because 5 frames is more than enough to show an airplane. of course, how stupid of me.
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,960
Best answers
0
Whose to say everything in the video is true. There are some very compelling pieces of evidence though, Fire. For example, the fact that there was no wreckage of the plane at the Pentagon. The government said the plane incinerated, despite the fact that this is scientifically impossible. The fact that both of the Twin Towers collapsed from a fire, them being the only buildings in history to ever completely collapse from a fire. The fact that the building that was hit second, the building that wasn't even hit dead on collapsed first. The fact that the video of Al Queda admitting they were responsible for the attacks had Bin Laden talking with a watch and ring on, something forbidden by Islamic law. The fact that in the video they found, he was using his right hand, but he is infact left handed. The fact that the black box from the plane was destroyed entirely, something made to withstand exactly that type of situation, yet a piece of paper linking the attack to Al Queda managed to survive and be found? I could go on, but I’m just doing this off the top of my head here.

So there is a lot of compelling evidence to look at. Some of it may not be true, but some of it does make you wonder.

And thank you for leaving this thread open, Sonic. I appreciate it.
Yea it's not like I didn't say the same thing... >_> - Pain
 
Lost in space
Banned
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
3,211
Best answers
0
Sub said:
Whose to say everything in the video is true. There are some very compelling pieces of evidence though, Fire. For example, the fact that there was no wreckage of the plane at the Pentagon. The fact that both of the Twin Towers collapsed from a fire, them being the only buildings in history to ever completely collapse from a fire. The fact that the building that was hit second, the building that wasn't even hit dead on collapsed first. The fact that the video of Al Queda admitting they were responsible for the attacks had Bin Laden talking with a watch and ring on, something forbidden by Islamic law. The fact that in the video they found, he was using his right hand, but he is infact left handed. The fact that every black box was destroyed entirely, something made to withstand exactly that type of situation, yet a piece of paper linking the attack to Al Queda managed to survive and be found? I could go on, but I’m just doing this off the top of my head here.

So there is a lot of compelling evidence to look at. Some of it may not be true, but some of it does make you wonder.
Very compelling indeed. Indeed. That's why i have pictures here in my house (my fathers a pilot) of books and books of pictures with a massive airplane smasshed through the pentagon? Or perhaps because if a bomb or multiple bombs exploded in the twin towers like said: then how in gods name would the twin towers collapse if the bombs were not at the base of the towers. Take a banana, stick a small firework in the top of it and explode it. What happens? the top of the banana blows off. It won't "collapse" same with the twin towers. 2 planes smashed into it. That's reason enough for me to say oh, maybe the velocity at which the planes were traveling maybe weakened the twins structure?

But fire but fire! They planted the bombs before hand! That they did little timmy, which is exactly why no one said anything or noticed them. Ladee daa dee daa. Hey look! A bomb... I'll just keep on walking and not tell anyone. I mean with all the janitors and people inside it, mechanics and all, i'm pretty sure SOMEONE will report it. It's no biggie.
 
Moving with Sonic Speed
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
4,532
Best answers
0
Fire Phoenix said:
Last I checked a cruise missile has a jet on it, omg, what was that? A jet you say? What's on an airplane, A jet. So that means that a cruise missle can go as fast as a jet propelled plane, so any commercial plane. 500 mph roughly.
Cruise Missiles typically come from boats and move far faster than cruising airliners. The theory that there could have been a smaller plane with a missile on it is still out there. I'm not sure missiles sound like airliners either, considering that they are much smaller, more aerodynamic, and much faster.

Also note that bombs planted along the walls and along structural components might not be easily visible or noticeable by everyday people.

And what is this picture you speak of with a plane in the pentagon? Show us. Apparently you have a picture no one else in the world has ever seen.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,626
Best answers
0
A Tomahawk cruise missile has a cruise speed of 550 mph. A passenger jet can travel this fast during a descent, but theres still the matter of the lack of damage to the Pentagon.

The 5 frames shown show no airplane, just the explosion and the lack of airplane imediately before it. Dont know what to make of that either.

Theres the little thing about cell phones not working either. Reception's bad enough on the ground, let alone at 30 000 ft.

There are some very solid arguments put forth in this video. While I dont believe to should be taken at face value, it shouldnt be automatically discarded because its a conspiracy theory. *gasp*
 
Lost in space
Banned
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
3,211
Best answers
0
Sonic Boyster said:
Cruise Missiles typically come from boats and move far faster than cruising airliners. The theory that there could have been a smaller plane with a missile on it is still out there. I'm not sure missiles sound like airliners either, considering that they are much smaller, more aerodynamic, and much faster.

Also note that bombs planted along the walls and along structural components might not be easily visible or noticeable by everyday people.

And what is this picture you speak of with a plane in the pentagon? Show us. Apparently you have a picture no one else in the world has ever seen.
I'd show you had I a scanner. Go to barns and noble. By a sept. 11 book.

Bombs planted along side a building? Erm. Sorry to dissapoint you but there is no way in hell bombs panted in a bulding exploding would cause a building such as the twin towers to collapse, again they'd have to be detonated at the base. Those weren't bombs, it was the twin towers collapsing ontop of itself.

Oh and cruise missiles travel at subsonic speeds. that's 250 mph. I said they travel at 500 mph. The tomahawk missile, which is fired from subs and ships.
Tomahawks are a subsonic missile. Explain to me how they are faster than commercial jets, which can reach a top speed of roughly 800 mph depending on the direction they are moving.

Edit: as for cell phones, air planes move too fast for a cell phone to get a signal.

As for the whole airplane thing hitting the twin towers. Well.. who said the airplane had to hit the twin tower, an airplane traveling roughly 500 mph... have ANYTHING pass by you at that speed with that size, and i can assure you the pressure and wind and intertia behind it is enough to destroy anything.

A plane ALONE weighs roughtly 100,000 pounds. Take a massive 757 which weighs around 300,000 lbs including the fuel which btw is stored in the wings like every other airplane: and you've got yourself a very deadly weapon at your disposal. where the airplane didn't hit the twin towers, the force behind the plane was more than enough to do its damage.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
1,043
Best answers
0
I have to agree that my first reaction was similar to Deman's. Here we have an elaborate conspiracy that threatens being found out because... they didn't make any effort to disguise the planes? I have more faith in my government's ability to lie. Then again, they have been exposed more than once: the start of the Spanish-American war, the start of Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin Resolution), hell, the whole WMD thing might even qualify.

Anyway, I found the most convincing part to be the investigation of the Pentagon crash. It can't be denied that it didn't make ANY sense for the hole to be that thin, or for so little wreckage to be found. Forget the eye-witness testimony, because obviously that's so varied it's stupid. Just look at the evidence. Look at that engine that could never have come from the kind of plane they described. Look at how far the plane's fuselage supposedly got without even leaving a remnant. Why WOULD they only release five frames of the ONLY footage they have of the plane, when it would dispel any doubts if it was in fact the plane they say it was?

Plane's that big make bigger impacts. And they don't just disappear. That stuff about that section of the Pentagon being the only part of the Pentagon reinforced against explosions and such... I dunno. It's shifty stuff.

Obviously, the people that were on these flights are not here anymore. Nobody is saying your dad's friend is really alive or something. On the contrary, the implication is that the people who were on these flights may have had something entirely different happen to them.

As for the towers, I think all of those reports of the "explosions" just before the collapse were pretty interesting. People are unreliable, but... well, I dunno anymore.

And Fire, please don't attempt to imply that bananas have structural integrity, and can thus be compared to a 100 story skyscraper. You'll only sound very silly. As well, C-130s don't just fly routine patrols around DC just in case of the need for a "rescue mission"...that's absurd.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top