9/11 anti-conspiracy videos/sites?
- Thread starter blix
- Start date
Soldato
Such as? Can't really respond to vague accusations.
No they haven't. At best Afghanistan can be seen as "revenge", Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Not to mention that most of the killing isnt really being done in revenge, unless the Iraqi insurgents and Afghanistan Taleban have suddenly switched sides?
NO, they are both not worth seeing. The only good documentary I have seen is "9/11 press for truth" which was made by the victims families and isn't some conspiratorial junk.
http://www.911pressfortruth.com/
Last edited:
Associate
I don't believe the conspiracies, but then I don't believe nor trust their government either in their version of events.
Whatever did happen, the sad event was manipulated and used for personal gain, making the world as **** poor as it is now.
Whatever did happen, the sad event was manipulated and used for personal gain, making the world as **** poor as it is now.
Don
I find it comical when people trump out stuff like this:
Especially when if they bothered to do some research they would find:
What's easier to belive and simpler?
1 - Some Muslim extremists steal some planes and fly them in to some buildings to cause chaos in the west.
2 - The US government stages a plot to destroy it's own infrastructure in order to justify war with Iraq and secure oil reserves. The plot includes a cover up on a massive scale with nearly every public official in on it and ever eye-witness bought.
Just apply Occum's razor to it. It aint hard.
People who belive this crap are completely, and utterly STUPID. There is this thing called EVIDENCE and scientific methodology that none of these so called "proofs" ever seem to apply.
If someone comes to me with some certifiable evidence that it was a conspiracy (and I don't mean circumstantial evidence) then I will listen. However I have never seen one single piece of evidence that it was anything other than what it was reported to be. There is overwhealming evidence to prove the official story though.
I guess it all stems from fools who post things like this on the internet
idiot said:
Especially when if they bothered to do some research they would find:
On site blast specialist said:
What's easier to belive and simpler?
1 - Some Muslim extremists steal some planes and fly them in to some buildings to cause chaos in the west.
2 - The US government stages a plot to destroy it's own infrastructure in order to justify war with Iraq and secure oil reserves. The plot includes a cover up on a massive scale with nearly every public official in on it and ever eye-witness bought.
Just apply Occum's razor to it. It aint hard.
People who belive this crap are completely, and utterly STUPID. There is this thing called EVIDENCE and scientific methodology that none of these so called "proofs" ever seem to apply.
If someone comes to me with some certifiable evidence that it was a conspiracy (and I don't mean circumstantial evidence) then I will listen. However I have never seen one single piece of evidence that it was anything other than what it was reported to be. There is overwhealming evidence to prove the official story though.
I guess it all stems from fools who post things like this on the internet
Baseless crap spouted by people who are far far too stupid to bother to research it themselves and are much more comfortable believing some rubbish on youtube.psychas said:
Last edited:
there so many facts that dont add up why for example why would building 7 or 21 cant remember the name would collapse blocks away from two towers why would not show tape form hotel cameras that plane hit the pentagon !? as there was no plane.
so obvious something was wrong at 9/11 and people who believe is terrorist is brain washed by media.
planes that hit two towers were not commercial planes. the mobile phone calls from plane how the hell ? and all etc just dont ads up
so obvious something was wrong at 9/11 and people who believe is terrorist is brain washed by media.
planes that hit two towers were not commercial planes. the mobile phone calls from plane how the hell ? and all etc just dont ads up
It's amusing how people who debate this issue always pick out the most ridiculous "conspiracy" arguments and then proceed to disprove them.
Forget the Pentagon, forget flight 93. Forget pods, missiles, stand down orders, advance warnings etc. You can even forget the financial irregularities in the days preceding 9/11 and other fairly indicative evidence if you like but do yourself this one favour: look at the science. If you don't agree with the scientific arguments that's fair enough, but you owe it to yourself to look at them.
Why not focus on the numerous aspects of "conspiracy theories" which have remained unchallenged?
Why has every "documentary", including that shown on the BBC failed to adequately grasp the reason why the pancake theory doesn't explain the collapse of the 3 towers? They even had a video, which showed the floors sliding down the core, with the core remaining standing.
Why not address the fact that the buildings collapsed at virtually freefall speed and into their own footprints, DEFYING every law of physics known to man?
Why not deal with the pools of molten metal which were found at ground zero for several weeks?
All that Popular Mechanics nonsense does is pick out the stupid bits out of commercialised rubbish like Loose Change and proceeds to disprove it. Good job, have a medal.
So I suppose you didn't see the video footage of that hotel being hit by part of one of the towers when they fell? Or that there was a huge fire in that building which I presume was started by bits of the plane hitting it?
The whole no plane thing I don't get, the conspiracy theories have no problem saying that the government was able to get hold of some planes to fly into the towers but for some reason they changed tactics and used a missile against the pentagon!! Why!??! Do they think the US government was short of cash so had to do the last bit on a budget?
The only thing that doesn't add up is that the government should have been capable of stopping this but obviously they screwed up big time.
Anyone who thinks there was a conspiracy by the government to perpetrate the attack has somehow been brain washed by a short video on google, very weak minded.
Don
It wasn't freefall. Time it. The debris on the ouside was freefall, the building wasn't. If it was freefall then the debris on the outside and the building would fall at the same rate, or do the laws of accelleration due to gravity not apply to conspiracy nut jobs like yourself?
All of those things you've posted have been debunked somewhere.
And yes, I have looked at the science. I am a physicist by education and nothing I have seen defies any laws.
Please, apply Occum's razor to the two scenarios and see which is the most plausable. Not very scientific I agree but it's usually proven correct.
Last edited:
That actually made me laugh out loud! Which laws of physics did the US government conspire to break? Was the tower travelling faster then light or something?
yes the hotel collapsed as the tower went on top of it.but not building 7!(there was fire on it but very marginal) . but what about other facts what about the planes with something attached to them man there so many that u cant explain. why hide stuff from people dont show video tapes and etc.. half of the terrorist are still alive ? what the hell like ?
secondary explosions ? in towers that look like demolition. there just so many stuff as i say again that not add up and u cant just cant explain them all.
melting steal point 2800f , jet fuel can burn 1800f that maxim and not for long. as for scientist estimated that fires after crash was burning 500f. and to steal to buckle and weaken fires have to be 2000f for at least few hours. and if somehow temperatures was so high were the planes hit how the hell people survived the same floors where the plane hit and did not burn to death. and even waved for help.
Bullpoo !
secondary explosions ? in towers that look like demolition. there just so many stuff as i say again that not add up and u cant just cant explain them all.
melting steal point 2800f , jet fuel can burn 1800f that maxim and not for long. as for scientist estimated that fires after crash was burning 500f. and to steal to buckle and weaken fires have to be 2000f for at least few hours. and if somehow temperatures was so high were the planes hit how the hell people survived the same floors where the plane hit and did not burn to death. and even waved for help.
Bullpoo !
Last edited:
Whether they have been "debunked" or not is a question of science. What you mean to say is that people have attempted to disprove those theories and put forward alternative theories. Having looked at both, I am of the view that Steven Jones' theories are better fitting to the evidence.
Occam's razor (and yes, it is spelled with an "a") is not some God-given instrument of truth, it's a philosophical tenet which you can agree or disagree with. Further, if we apply it to events which we know to be true, we will find that in many instances the simplest explanation wasn't true.
Assume for one second, just for the purpose of humouring a random guy on the internet, that there was a government conspiracy to do something. Do you honestly believe that a handful of people, armed with their pathetic personal resources and limited access to information would be able to fully uncover it and present a 100% accurate explanation of the events?
Put another way, we spend billions of pounds in taxes every year to maintain a police force, the security services and the machinery of the state, yet a depressing proportion of all crimes committed by individuals go unsolved. This is despite the huge advantages the police have over criminals.
None of us can be certain of what happened, but the point is that there are a large number of unanswered questions. The fact that someone somewhere on a website called "Debunking 9/11 myths" posted a paper claiming to debunk "conspiracy" assertions doesn't mean that he was actually successful. It's up to the individual to look at those alternative theories and decide for themselves, on the basis of the facts and the arguments, not on the basis of their preconceptions of what happened.
It wasn't blocks away from the towers. When the towers fell it ripped an entire corner of the building.
How do a missile cut down numerous lampposts on it's approach with the wingspan of a plane. How do it move a 10 ton generator? how did it leave the correct plane wreckage at the site, how did a missile leave a blurry but clearly large object flying into the pentagon and 101 other things. Please don't sprout such rubbish with oiut looking up the basics.
it was missing entire corners. no there was nothing attached to the plane. Other than normall plane parts. which plane designers have said. don't believe people who don't have a clue what they are looking at.
No secondary explosions, other things like power grids and trapped air exploding out, due to the increase in air pressure as *** top of the tower pancakes.
again your sprouting crap. Steel losses it strength well below the melting point. Loads of other towers have collapse or partly collapsed due to fire.
your all eyes got blurred with bs. there no right person with right mind would think that there was no cover up of any kind in 9/11 and that all events of 9/11 were terrorist acts and did look suspicious.
edit. loads of towers make it nearly none towers collapsed from fire. how would explain buildings 4, 6, and 5 i still standing. after the towers collapse.
man just stop filling people with bs
edit: i will leave you to believe what ever you want believe, but someday the trough will come out what happen that day.
i pity you that your mind was washed
edit. loads of towers make it nearly none towers collapsed from fire. how would explain buildings 4, 6, and 5 i still standing. after the towers collapse.
man just stop filling people with bs
edit: i will leave you to believe what ever you want believe, but someday the trough will come out what happen that day.
i pity you that your mind was washed
Last edited:
Man of Honour
I'm clearly very slow but could you just explain to me what purpose building 7 (?) collapsing served in a conspiracy? I've not looked into whether it did or didn't collapse so I'm taking your word on that here, I'd just like to know why you think it suited any conspiracy to have it collapse? Particularly if, as you claim, it was a significant distance away.
But that's the thing the conspiracy theorists can't find anything odd. The stuff they do "find" is total BS and can easily be discredited with out huge research.