9/11 conspiracies are nonsense

Originally posted by aecreate
and someone just posted some nice pictures on this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...#

Yes the dust moved almost like that of a vulcano eruption, but luckily not as much.

My take is far more simple, they, the "terrorists" were rouge elements of the NSA or CIA or some other sub-group interconnected to the oil industry and the DOD. They had snakes in their midst. How did they penetrate? How did they kill them? Well as a good rule of measure the "secret projects" of DARPA or any acronym group involved are at least 20-50 years acknowledged ahead of the public sector. Odds are it's more like 100 years if we are dealing with these groups that are in control of the worlds finances, and decide whom fights whom and when. Maybe the Bilderbergers and some conglomeration of intelligence and defense. I'll be honest and say that I've seen hundereds of possibilities if not thousands. The main conspiracy theory of the Arab Terrorists being alone in carrying out the attack is pretty much impossible, as well as some other conspiracy theories as well. Facts are that WTC7 was demolished and somehow the other two were demolished as well. It's possible the terrorists had no control of the planes and they were flown like some sort of advanced global hawk system, entirely computerized and remotely coordinated with devices the terrorists had or someone else in the vicinity. That's the issues at the heart of the matter, but again these are only one possibility of an infinite amount of options available. Explosives could have been used or some other unknown classifed kind of devices could have been used. If you have advanced technology what will appear as magic to most people even in front of their eyes will also seem impossible. The problems with the few theories by the public and the defense is that none of them actually suffice do disprove either of the theories so you have a conundrum that only more evidence or discovery of other forgotten elements will make the theories plausible. No theory is entirely disprovable and all are subject to evolve into more plausible possibilities, but nothing is entirely certain and that's what drives most people nuts. There are inifinite possibilities, nothing in life is ever completely certain, science is not always right nor are computers or people perfect. They all breakdown and decay and maybe recombine. I don't want to go off into quantum mechanics, so this is all I'm going to say for the moment.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Reallynobody, you seem to have a good sense of reality. Welcome to the dark side.

Certainly all the theories are nonsense, many of them are actually pretty funny.

Enjoy your self here.

iv'e read so many of your replies mr.roark, and if reallynobody really does have a good sense of reality, he will be able to pick up on your evil agenda quickly, maybe that is why you never posted any support to his claims. your a smart guy (sadisticly) and i see you work hard for your money... i like that
but just curious, when did you learn the difference between the gift of gab, and the sin of spin? did you know from the start, or was it too late once you found out?

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Well, It looks like you haven't done much research into any of these claims before posting. Considering that none of your counterclaims actually address the issues proposed by the claims in any serious manner, I'll let you go over these:

A declassified document from 1962 detailing a plan to execute a situation nearly identical to 9/11 to use as an excuse for war with Cuba.

www.gwu.edu...

Plus this:
killtown.911review.org...
However these could be considered coincidences.

Plus this guy makes a very good point,
video.google.com...

Read and watch at your leisure

Originally posted by Semiazas

Originally posted by reallynobody

Originally posted by Semiazas

3) How could anyone mistake a missile for a plane? If they thought it was a plane then it ain't a missile. There is a HUGE difference between them, the sound alone is deafening if it was a missile. Go watch some footage of both.

Missiles seem to sound almost exactly the same at as a 747 when it is cruising at top speed. Ever heard a plane take off? Imagine that times about three.

OK I suppose there are many types of missiles. But the eye witnesses clearly describe a plane. Whas it a missile disguised as a plane? What a dangeous thing to do anyway, someone might have had a camera pointing at the right time and then the gov would be screwed! Sure lucky thing that didnt happen hehe.

Let's say it really was a missile. What happened to the plane? Not easy to get rid of with all the airtraffic radar and people around. Did they use cloaking fields?
Teleporters?

A cruise missile could be easily disguised as a plane with a few stripes and logo. Also, ATC's ( Air Traffic Controllers ) lost track of Flight 93 because the hijackers supposedly turned off the tracking beacon. So it really would not be hard to turn off the tracking beacon, get rid of the plane ( which could be done many ways..shot down over ocean, landed and taken in hangar - repainted ), and as for the people on board...if 2000+ are already dead in the hands of the government, 200 more would be nothing.

* O and for your camera comment, a local gas station had a camera pointing at the building along with a hotel....these cameras' tapes were taken by federal agents minutes after the crash.

Tracking beacons are nice for identification. Radar does not rely on such, but picks up the actual plane. You can't just fly it out to the ocean, people on the ground can see you, and even if you fly high enough to obscure view from the ground you are still a blip on the screen of any other radar system. I find it hard to swallow that all radar-dudes are agents.

Also, what about ship on sea? The aren't all on a set course. Many are just setting course as they go along, and you can't possibly anticipate whether someone is near when you crash the plane. And there are other planes that will see you.

And no matter how deep a plane goes down, bodies will still float to the surface.
That is because at sufficient depth the plane will be crushed open by the pressure and it's contents released. there is no region of sea that is soo remote that the chance of large chunks of passenger, seats and luggage be found is zero.

Do the shadies throw dice? They must be high rollers.

[edit on 28-6-2006 by reallynobody]

Originally posted by bubbabuddha
My take is far more simple, they, the "terrorists" were rouge elements of the NSA or CIA or some other sub-group interconnected to the oil industry and the DOD. They had snakes in their midst. How did they penetrate? How did they kill them? Well as a good rule of measure the "secret projects" of DARPA or any acronym group involved are at least 20-50 years acknowledged ahead of the public sector. Odds are it's more like 100 years if we are dealing with these groups that are in control of the worlds finances, and decide whom fights whom and when. Maybe the Bilderbergers and some conglomeration of intelligence and defense. I'll be honest and say that I've seen hundereds of possibilities if not thousands. The main conspiracy theory of the Arab Terrorists being alone in carrying out the attack is pretty much impossible, as well as some other conspiracy theories as well. Facts are that WTC7 was demolished and somehow the other two were demolished as well. It's possible the terrorists had no control of the planes and they were flown like some sort of advanced global hawk system, entirely computerized and remotely coordinated with devices the terrorists had or someone else in the vicinity. That's the issues at the heart of the matter, but again these are only one possibility of an infinite amount of options available. Explosives could have been used or some other unknown classifed kind of devices could have been used. If you have advanced technology what will appear as magic to most people even in front of their eyes will also seem impossible. The problems with the few theories by the public and the defense is that none of them actually suffice do disprove either of the theories so you have a conundrum that only more evidence or discovery of other forgotten elements will make the theories plausible. No theory is entirely disprovable and all are subject to evolve into more plausible possibilities, but nothing is entirely certain and that's what drives most people nuts. There are inifinite possibilities, nothing in life is ever completely certain, science is not always right nor are computers or people perfect. They all breakdown and decay and maybe recombine. I don't want to go off into quantum mechanics, so this is all I'm going to say for the moment.

Thanks for reinstating what a theory is and how many possibilities there can be in something that hasn't been proven or excepted as fact yet , however I do disagree completely with you in that "The main conspiracy theory of the Arab Terrorists being alone in carrying out the attack is pretty much impossible..", it is very possible that this happened. What makes it not possible? They come to the USA which was and still is very easy to get into, they go to flight school, they all communicate with eachother with some mean of private communication (voIP, AIM, XBOX Live or PS2 online with headsets), and then they finally do what they started out wanting to do which is hijack and crash the planes. You over-estimate our governments defense. I personally do not believe that they did it single handedly, but I know it could have been done and so do the people who orchestrated 9-11 which is why it went along so smooth with most Americans.

Originally posted by tom goose

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Reallynobody, you seem to have a good sense of reality. Welcome to the dark side.

Certainly all the theories are nonsense, many of them are actually pretty funny.

Enjoy your self here.

iv'e read so many of your replies mr.roark, and if reallynobody really does have a good sense of reality, he will be able to pick up on your evil agenda quickly, maybe that is why you never posted any support to his claims. your a smart guy (sadisticly) and i see you work hard for your money... i like that

but just curious, when did you learn the difference between the gift of gab, and the sin of spin? did you know from the start, or was it too late once you found out?

Ow come on. There are those with different views but evil? If this forum was so important that people here warranted agents posting debunking arguments, I would expect progress toward a common theory which resembled the truth.
All that seems to happen is that more theories are thought up every day without many, if all, disappearing. There is no selection, no comprimising. Everyone wants their theory to be truth and all that believe otherwize are part of "them".

i frankly disagree with almost all the counter claims.

firstly there is no rule saying tht muslim men cannot wear jewellery. the only statement is not gold jewellery.

secondly about the airplanes debris, it doesnt matter how big the explosion was, unless its not nuclera there is bound to be debris left. the aircraft was huge, there has to be debris but the absence of which makes one wonder...

also there are many reliable witnesses tht agree to POSSIBLY seeing a missile.

i also saw a presentation, where it was shown how the aircraft had to turn as was seen in radar by the control centr just before it went out of radar range. it clearly shows tht the aircraft would have to attempt a very steep bank and also turn at a very low altitude. both of these not being possible with such a huge commercial airliner.

i also admit tht the claims of the world trade center attacks of being a hoax are falsified but at the same time the attack on the pentagon does leave many questions unanswered.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Reallynobody, you seem to have a good sense of reality. Welcome to the dark side.

Certainly all the theories are nonsense, many of them are actually pretty funny.

Enjoy your self here.

haha

Originally posted by reallynobody

Originally posted by Semiazas

Originally posted by reallynobody

Originally posted by Semiazas

3) How could anyone mistake a missile for a plane? If they thought it was a plane then it ain't a missile. There is a HUGE difference between them, the sound alone is deafening if it was a missile. Go watch some footage of both.

Missiles seem to sound almost exactly the same at as a 747 when it is cruising at top speed. Ever heard a plane take off? Imagine that times about three.

OK I suppose there are many types of missiles. But the eye witnesses clearly describe a plane. Whas it a missile disguised as a plane? What a dangeous thing to do anyway, someone might have had a camera pointing at the right time and then the gov would be screwed! Sure lucky thing that didnt happen hehe.

Let's say it really was a missile. What happened to the plane? Not easy to get rid of with all the airtraffic radar and people around. Did they use cloaking fields?
Teleporters?

A cruise missile could be easily disguised as a plane with a few stripes and logo. Also, ATC's ( Air Traffic Controllers ) lost track of Flight 93 because the hijackers supposedly turned off the tracking beacon. So it really would not be hard to turn off the tracking beacon, get rid of the plane ( which could be done many ways..shot down over ocean, landed and taken in hangar - repainted ), and as for the people on board...if 2000+ are already dead in the hands of the government, 200 more would be nothing.

* O and for your camera comment, a local gas station had a camera pointing at the building along with a hotel....these cameras' tapes were taken by federal agents minutes after the crash.

Tracking beacons are nice for identification. Radar does not rely on such, but picks up the actual plane. You can't just fly it out to the ocean, people on the ground can see you, and even if you fly high enough to obscure view from the ground you are still a blip on the screen of any other radar system. I find it hard to swallow that all radar-dudes are agents.

Also, what about ship on sea? The aren't all on a set course. Many are just setting course as they go along, and you can't possibly anticipate whether someone is near when you crash the plane. And there are other planes that will see you.

And no matter how deep a plane goes down, bodies will still float to the surface.
That is because at sufficient depth the plane will be crushed open by the pressure and it's contents released. there is no region of sea that is soo remote that the chance of large chunks of passenger, seats and luggage be found is zero.

Do the shadies thrown dice? They must be high rollers.

Good point about the bodies over water, but what about landing it, putting it into a hangar, repainting, and then getting rid of the bodies? A reporter out of Ohio reported that United Flight 93 landed on 9/11, two hours after it supposedly crashed. So why couldn't the plane that hit the Pentagon have landed at some facility just like 93 was reported to have done?

Well, since everyone here at least appears to be open to information, check out the following:
[link] www.salon.com... [/link]

..... not exactly a bastion of Conservatism.

Did a plane hit the Pentagon? Check the witnesses:
www.whatreallyhappened.com... [/link]

"Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project."
[link] www.snopes.com... [/link]

Edited for content-zappafan

[edit on 28-6-2006 by zappafan1]

Originally posted by zappafan1
Well, since everyone here at least appears to be open to information, check out the following:
[link]http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/[/link]

..... not exactly a bastion of Conservatism.

Bad link, only gives about three paragraphs then you must view sponsors to read it in its complete form.

Why Sir, all of a sudden, when things are going the way thay are in the Middle East, would you choose to post a KNOWN ?inflammatorial? thread? C'mon- coming to a CONSPIRACY website and basically telling the majority of registered members that their beliefs are false???? Especiallly about 911???



YOU REGISTERED HERE YESTERDAY.

Simon, any thoughts?

Originally posted by silverfang786
i frankly disagree with almost all the counter claims.

firstly there is no rule saying tht muslim men cannot wear jewellery. the only statement is not gold jewellery.

If you say so! Massmurderes wouldn't care about such rules in any case.
And having your picture taken is also forbidden. Im not sure if a movie is seen as any different, but with fundamentalists you never know.

secondly about the airplanes debris, it doesnt matter how big the explosion was, unless its not nuclera there is bound to be debris left. the aircraft was huge, there has to be debris but the absence of which makes one wonder...

Yes I get that the aircraft was huge, but the explosion was also huge! And there is no "absence" of debris. That would be odd indeed... No, the conspiracy theorists say that there is not ENOUGH debris. Which is something I don't agree with, but Im not an expert. It just seems that an airliner which crashes nose-first with full tanks of fuel would not leave a whole lot.

also there are many reliable witnesses tht agree to POSSIBLY seeing a missile.

Are they even more reliable then the ones that claim they CERTAINLY saw an airplane?

i also saw a presentation, where it was shown how the aircraft had to turn as was seen in radar by the control centr just before it went out of radar range. it clearly shows tht the aircraft would have to attempt a very steep bank and also turn at a very low altitude. both of these not being possible with such a huge commercial airliner.

NO. That is something that I AM very certain of. A passenger airliner can make far sharper turns than it usually would, but only so not to stress both the plane and passengers. In case of an emergency or insance terrorist suicide attack, the plane can go very steep in no time, and the faster the plane the faster it can turn.
And in a nosedive it can go FAST, which is probably why eyewitnesses are having trouble describing the plane.

also admit tht the claims of the world trade center attacks of being a hoax are falsified but at the same time the attack on the pentagon does leave many questions unanswered.

So far the only element left unanswered for me is that building 7. But perhaps that is only because I haven't looked up anything about it.

[edit on 28-6-2006 by reallynobody]

[edit on 28-6-2006 by reallynobody]

Ahhhh!!! welcome to planet Earth! I see you JUST arrived!...enjoy your stay and between you and me and the fencepost...our Earth news is lies, weather and sports okay? so dont get all hung up on that stuff....most will think your a TOTAL RETARD

Originally posted by MajesticJax
Why Sir, all of a sudden, when things are going the way thay are in the Middle East, would you choose to post a KNOWN ?inflammatorial? thread? C'mon- coming to a CONSPIRACY website and basically telling the majority of registered members that their beliefs are false???? Especiallly about 911???



YOU REGISTERED HERE YESTERDAY.

Simon, any thoughts?

LOL well. ehm. Actually I just wanted to PPM a few people but I must have 20 postings in order to do so. So I decided to give my opinion of a subject which appears to be viewed rather extremely different. He, im open minded. Apparently Im just not you. It's called individualism, get used to it.

Welcome to ATS my friend. I look forward to many good arguments with you.

Originally posted by Semiazas

Originally posted by reallynobody

Originally posted by Semiazas

Originally posted by reallynobody

Originally posted by Semiazas

3) How could anyone mistake a missile for a plane? If they thought it was a plane then it ain't a missile. There is a HUGE difference between them, the sound alone is deafening if it was a missile. Go watch some footage of both.

Missiles seem to sound almost exactly the same at as a 747 when it is cruising at top speed. Ever heard a plane take off? Imagine that times about three.

OK I suppose there are many types of missiles. But the eye witnesses clearly describe a plane. Whas it a missile disguised as a plane? What a dangeous thing to do anyway, someone might have had a camera pointing at the right time and then the gov would be screwed! Sure lucky thing that didnt happen hehe.

Let's say it really was a missile. What happened to the plane? Not easy to get rid of with all the airtraffic radar and people around. Did they use cloaking fields?
Teleporters?

A cruise missile could be easily disguised as a plane with a few stripes and logo. Also, ATC's ( Air Traffic Controllers ) lost track of Flight 93 because the hijackers supposedly turned off the tracking beacon. So it really would not be hard to turn off the tracking beacon, get rid of the plane ( which could be done many ways..shot down over ocean, landed and taken in hangar - repainted ), and as for the people on board...if 2000+ are already dead in the hands of the government, 200 more would be nothing.

* O and for your camera comment, a local gas station had a camera pointing at the building along with a hotel....these cameras' tapes were taken by federal agents minutes after the crash.

Tracking beacons are nice for identification. Radar does not rely on such, but picks up the actual plane. You can't just fly it out to the ocean, people on the ground can see you, and even if you fly high enough to obscure view from the ground you are still a blip on the screen of any other radar system. I find it hard to swallow that all radar-dudes are agents.

Also, what about ship on sea? The aren't all on a set course. Many are just setting course as they go along, and you can't possibly anticipate whether someone is near when you crash the plane. And there are other planes that will see you.

And no matter how deep a plane goes down, bodies will still float to the surface.
That is because at sufficient depth the plane will be crushed open by the pressure and it's contents released. there is no region of sea that is soo remote that the chance of large chunks of passenger, seats and luggage be found is zero.

Do the shadies thrown dice? They must be high rollers.

Good point about the bodies over water, but what about landing it, putting it into a hangar, repainting, and then getting rid of the bodies? A reporter out of Ohio reported that United Flight 93 landed on 9/11, two hours after it supposedly crashed. So why couldn't the plane that hit the Pentagon have landed at some facility just like 93 was reported to have done?

I thought I heard something about a reporter guy. What network was he with?
It is possible ofcourse but how do you evade radar? And passenger airliners don't usually land on military airbases. The landingstrip is long enough, because there are plenty of large military planes, but wouldnt mroe people notice?

If there really was an eyewitness that was great, but where did the reporter say the plane landed?

Originally posted by reallynobody
NO. That is something that I AM very certain of. A passenger airliner can make far sharper turns than it usually would, but only so not to stress both the plane and passengers. In case of an emergency or insance terrorist suicide attack, the plane can go very steep in no time, and the faster the plane the faster it can turn.
And in a nosedive it can go FAST, which is probably why eyewitnesses are having trouble describing the plane.

Only trouble is that its route to impact wasnt a steep nosedive. If you see the alleged video of the crash you can see it coming in almost parallel to the ground which is the exact opposite of a nosedive.

Originally posted by Census
Ahhhh!!! welcome to planet Earth! I see you JUST arrived!...enjoy your stay and between you and me and the fencepost...our Earth news is lies, weather and sports okay? so dont get all hung up on that stuff....most will think your a TOTAL RETARD

The weather reports do seem inconsistent with the facts at times.