9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked

N

N-John360

Member
Recently, there have been many "the gov. is out to get us" threads, many of them dealing with 9/11. Doubtfully a coincidence, many of them were made by Eleven. To them I show them this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q20NmYGE-T4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs8HuplzFcA&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n9-tCMEEew&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVbw4tbq7jM

I've watched both the conspiracy theories and the ones that debunk them, and the ladder supports many more believable facts. It shows that like I have always said, research both sides of the story.
 
Something tells me you didn't watch them. Because if you did, your gullible mind would be stirring that the U.S. may not have caused 9/11 after all.

And about the latter part, English isn't my 1st language.
 
cuz youre a terrorist...but really i dont care at all go back to your fox news and tell somebody who gives a shit.
 
is this really the forum to be debating 9/11, i'm sure they have politcal forums out there that you should belong too.
 
Uhhh, those videos weren't convincing in the slightest. One was made by fox, another by CNN, another by a pentagon representative. the last one was the only convincing one but it still didn't do a good job of "debunkin".
 
Non-Ski Gabber: Use this forum, and only this forum for everything non-ski related.
 
They just had a show on the History channel yesterday and they had experts debunk every aspect of conspiracies, it even had those loose change dudes on it.
 
How the hell did building 7 fall at basically the speed of gravity with no resistance whatsoever? It took seven seconds for the building to fall which is like .2 seconds difference than if an object was dropped in a vacuum (no resistance) space. Seems awfully fishy to me.
 
Simple, it didn't. You were told that by some goofy ass college kids with no back round in physics at all and you believed it like a sheep.

Go watch Fahrenheit 9-11. The big deal with 9-11 wasn't that it was a conspiracy at all. You just lost your way, young padawan.
 
Anyone who believes loose change should be compressed into rocket fuel and then used to blast terrorists into space.

That documentary is the craziest thing I've ever seen. He sites small puffs of smoke at floor intervals as irrefutable evidence that the building was C4'ed, except that they only occurred on one CORNER of the building, and were thick black smoke, IE, could just as easily have been hydraulic systems or other inner building works spurting out as the building went down.

Total quackery.
 
I've seen other more legit things that weren't debunked in those videos, like how a terrorists passport survived the plane crash, jet fuel burning hotter than it possibly can, stuff like that.... those videos debunked cruise missiles, the way they think a building would fall, and I didn't really watch the last two because I could have done the first ones
 
I'd like to see everything I've seen debunked, I'm leaning on more of bad reporting of the facts than a super conspiracy, but theres still some more stuff to figure out
 
It already has been. Do some looking around yourself.

- A lot of shit survived the plane crash, that's common. Not everything gets vaporized.

- Jet fuel never burned hotter than it possibly could. False statement built upon a debunked theory for why buildings collapsed.

Honestly, it's all been figured out man.
 
Not even close. The governments report was so shady its not even funny, THEY DONT EVEN MENTION WTC 7 in it.

The loosechangeguide is so outdated, it doesnt mean shit.
 
They did report it terribly I think, even if they did have a hand or no hand at all, they definitely took advantage of Americas anger to fuel their own agenda
 
Your all idiots.

It was the fucking Canadians. We will get revenge canada, be ready. Be Fucking Ready.
 
I don't think many of us disagree with that. I actually wrote a report on it last year - about how they used tragedy to force their agenda and in parts of 9/11 that they didn't have an answer for, they blamed it on Osama. All in all, the fucked up, regardless of the degree in which they did so.
 
I'm not saying it wasnt a conspiracy by bushcorp, I'm just stating that the way they laid it out in loose change was completely ridiculous (Missiles on the bottom of a 767? Are they actually serious? C4? It may not have been enough heat to melt the steel but it only had to weaken it, etc etc.), so ridiculous it actually made the rest of us who believe in, oh, science, look bad.

It did more to make the consipracy theorists look stupid than anything else. I hate that thing.
 
Yes, thats a very good article. That presents real scientific information, rather than a 19 year old kid speculating about shit. It's just disturbing how many people will believe the 19 year old over a cadre of engineers...

Trust me people, I work in this business and if I wanted to take down a building and make it look like a terrorist job, I'd just pay one of the MANY saudi families we're in bed with to do it for real. It doesn't get more real than the real thing, and frankly, I believe that's a perfectly good explanation as to why bin laden initially denied responsability for the attacks, -he didn't coordinate them-. Just my .02 in the bucket.
 
can anyone come up clear and convincing evidence? maybe something beyond a reasonable doubt? anything like that i'd like to hear until then its a topic that no one can prove ethier way, we do know it happened and we do know bush's response... personally i think more people should pay more attention to up coming elections(or skiing) if they really care about politics instead of debating a consipacy theory, grassy nome, moon landing, roswell 9/11? unless the goverenment is singled out and there mad proof? (like i dunno bush saying i did it or something?) everything will remain the same until then, i'd hope to see people focus energy on something current, something they could actually have a say in, like the mess in iraq or our health care problemsm our debt that didnt exist before bush etc, instead of the past, leave that for historians

o and whoever quoted me about this being the proper forum i only suggested it because you'd get answers that have some real research to them(not that ALL of these responses have not included research, some have) instead of an opion
 
ever notice how all the conspiracy theory videos show the same angle of building 7 collapse? wonder why that is? it's because it's the only angle that supports their claims.

if you look at shots of the other side of the building you'll see that it began to collapse inward from that side opposite the conspiracy theorists' favorite angle. so the video that shows the building collapsing in 8 seconds or whatever isn't telling the whole story - in all the building, took about 16 seconds to fall, or about twice freefall speed.

also, did you know that building 7 was constructed unusually? for one, it was built on the foundation of an old power substation, meaning that the key structural members couldn't penentrate into the ground but rather stopped on top of the old foundation, clearly making the building much less stable.

additionally, building 7 had been renovated in the 90's (i think it was the 90s, could've been earlier possibly). this renovation was designed to allow tenants to have double-height ceilings. they accomplished that by taking out the interior structural elements. so 7 was essentially hollow - it had no strong core like the towers.

also, the conspiracy theorists love to talk about how the building suffered very little damage in the collapse of the towers, completing neglecting the facts. again, if you look at other pictures of the building (from the angles the conspiracy theorists don't want you to see), you'll see that an entire corner of the building is missing. on top of that, the conspiracy theorists never make any mention of the fact that there was a significant fire in building 7. this was because diesel for NYC emergency vehicles was stored in tanks there - thus when the antenna came down from the north tower through building 7's facade, it ruptured fuel lines, resulting in a fire fueled by pressurized diesel burning for about 7 hours.

moral of the story - look at both sides of things. this is exactly (and in many cases, literally) what the "9/11" truth movement depends on you NOT doing.

 
Seriously, you can blabber on and on but the fact is, YOU WERE NOT THERE WHEN 9/11 happened. Neither was I. So quit acting like you saw it with your own eyes.

I dont understand how people ignore the countless fire fighters and policemen actually making statements about what they saw with their own eyeballs. Of course I only saw certain angles of the buildings, because there is only so much video footage. Its not like there were 50 cameras pointing at the towers the day it happened.

It is a HUGE coincidence that there was a VERY HIGH DEF cameraman filming below 9/11 that day about something totally irrellevant to the attacks and happened to get like the best shot of the towers and that footage was on the news directly after it happened.
 
live in fucking new york and pay the taxes you prick all you other 49 states were supposed to be helping but your not, ass holes. Im not bitter, i really dont care that no one else is helping, but honestly, the taxes suck.
 
yeah i watched that shit. i liked it when they said when the theories were proved false they just took them out of their "documentary"? and i liked it when they said real researchers fill in the dots not leave the dots for the viewers to figure out.
 
Actually... there was a lot of cameras watching. I wouldn't doubt if 50 was an understatement. And I'd like to know what you are talking about in your last paragraph? It honestly doesn't make sense.
 
i'm not saying anything like that i saw it with my own eyes. i'm saying that i've researched this on sites other than anonymous blogs. i'm saying that those who lead the conspiracy theory movement blatantly disregard facts, take quotes ridiculously out of context, and put forth ideas that are far-fetched, ill-supported conjecture at absolute best.

the fact is that there is other information out there (about building 7, for one thing) that is completely ignored (and suppressed) by the pseudo-scholars that some people blindly follow. just try researching the opposing side to your theories.

as for the cameras...what is at all unusual about someone at one of the country's major tourist attractions having a good camera? and as the other guy said, i'm sure there were probably well over 50 camera's pointed at the tower that day. after the first plane hit, there were probably AT LEAST hundreds.

 
Thank you. The most ignorant ones are the ones who simply accept that those conspiracy nuts are right because they are opposed to the government.
 
How is it ignorant for someone to question the gov't actions? If it weren't for people questioning the government, we would never be a country in the first place. I'm not going to say my belief in this subject, becaues I don't want to get into it with anyone right now, but just take a look at the general progression of our government and their power. They've been slowly but progressively getting more and more power over their citizens (us, in case you didn't catch that) and are being very secretive about all of it. I think that is a good reason to question the motives of any government.
 
CLIFF NOTES: Read last paragraph.

See there's really two arguments here:

1) The government was somehow behind the 9/11 attacks.

2) The government placed bombs, missiles on planes, and missiled the pentagon.

Option 1 is perfectly plausible.

Its the option 2 people I have issues with. The science is clear that planes can bring down towers, and a missile did not hit the pentagon. And for you naysayers, I WAS there in new york on 9/11 and my father was on the first-due rescue truck to respond, not that that means anything, because firefighters are not aeronautical engineers, or architects, so take it with a grain of salt when you hear a fireman say something sounded like a bomb or that it looked like a demolition or that there was a 'missile pod' on the plane.

Fact is, the people who were there were average joes who were under a lot of stress, and when your friends are dying its easy to think there's something bigger going on. Or its as simple as from where YOU are standing the light may have been glinting enough to make it seem like there were no windows on the aircraft, etc.

Like I said, if the government wanted this to happen, why the hell would they bother with C4 when the could just pay terror groups, or at least help them get the opportunity. That way there is no question, yes, planes did hit and destroy the trade towers. If you want to be angry, be angry about that, and be angry that hippy morons in the EPA who banned asbestos use in securing the steel beams have the blood of some 3000 folk on their hands.
 
Well, beauty of america is you can still believe whatever you like to ^^

But please remember everything you believe when election comes around and vote with your heart. Don't sit this one out, we need everyone!
 
let me say the creator of this thread should be banned for slander because i dont believe in what he posted BUT i know for sure that 99% of the internet is disinfo and that people who say they know for certain that the offical story is how it happened because they read popular mechanics need to be slapped just as hard as the assholes who mindlessly chant "9/11 was an inside job" and label themselves part of the 9/11 truth movement. most of the fucks who are apart of this "movement" are in it because they are idiotic attention whores and think if they are the opposite of bush then they must be right. if you want something to look at that is not insane shit like loose change and how flight 93 landed look at professer steven jones finding thermite on steel at ground zero and the truck bomb that was found on the GW bridge at night on 9.11. there is actually a video of Dan Rather saying that the FBI had two men in custody after they pulled over a van with massive amounts of exsplosives, this is on tape, so do not say i am a conspiracy theorist, i have a good idea of what happened but im not going to go around stating it like its fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top