|
On this fine September day I got permission to start this thread to examine and debunk some of the more common theories and conspiracies concerning 9/11, and the idea that the official narrative is in some way false. Either the Bush administration was to some degree cognizant that something was going to happen on September 11th and essentially allowed it to occur when it could have been prevented to whip up support for their designs in the Middle East, or outright organized the attacks themselves as a false flag for the same reason. The former is an easier pill to swallow than the latter but both theories tend to lean on a lot of the same evidence, and there's always been a significant subset of the American population that believes such conspiracies to some degree with a wide variety of political affiliations. The internet has always provided fertile ground for such conspiracies and in the age of Twitter its not hard to find people talking about them openly to large audiences that seem receptive, not to mention lots of podcasts and videos talking about them in more detail. I'm hoping that people are going to be able to bring good data to the table here to help see if the conspiracies are mostly bunk, or perhaps even see if there's anything worth listening to for at least some of them. The US government and Bush Administration in particular has a long history of acting with murderous cynicism to pursue its interests and I can see why in the face of historical precedent like the sinking of the USS Maine, Gulf of Tonkin incident or indeed how the Bush regime exploited the horror and anger of 9/11 to pursue its murderous adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq why people are skeptical of the official narrative. Certainly there are things I still wonder about today that hopefully this thread will address. I want to avoid some of the most ridiculous theories off the bat so I think we can discard, for example, the idea that there were somehow no planes used at all in the attacks and they were all the result of digital trickery. Instead here are some of the more common pieces of evidence I see float around: 1. Insider trading in the days before 9/11 suggests some powerful people had knowledge that something was about to go down One of the more common ideas I've seen on Twitter lately: https://twitter.com/SeanMcCarthyCom/status/1436025604323745812 2. Air defense was either given a stand down order or deliberately delayed so that jets wouldn't be able to catch the planes before they hit their targets. This point is made in particular to the Pentagon which it is argued is one of the most heavily defended places on Earth so no random plane should have been able to smash into it without getting shot down by intercepters. 3. Israeli agents were celebrating the attacks and seemed to show foreknowledge that they were going to happen. As with a lot of conspiracies, including the true ones, Israel is a prominent character, though this one is more popular with the out and proud anti-semites. Still its also often included into the more 'mainstream' conspiracies with questions about these men and the suspicious activity they seem to have engaged in. They were arrested by the FBI soon after, though released without charge, and there are various photos of them often circulated by people with interest in the conspiracies to suggest something was afoot https://www.mintpressnews.com/newly-released-fbi-docs-shed-light-on-apparent-mossad-foreknowledge-of-9-11-attacks/258581/  One of the Israelis in September 10th holding up a lighter against the New York skyline. 4. Tower 7 collapsed in a way that can only be explained by a controlled demolition. I won't get too into controlled demolition theories but the collapse of Tower 7 tends to be the locus of most of them since it was not directly hit like the other ones. 5. Jet Fuel can't melt steel beams. A theory so popular that its essentially turned into a meme, though its one of the weaker ones since its often been shown how even without actually melting them into liquid when steel beams are extremely hot they lose a huge amount of their strength. As an alternative theories tend to orbit around the idea that there simply wasn't enough jet fuel to create a conflagration large enough to cause the towers to collapse and there wasn't enough other debris in the buildings that could burn hot enough to support such a hot fire. This is usually part of the controlled demolition idea. 6. The lead engineer of the Twin Towers himself had stated they were built to withstand an airliner crash. Leslie Robertson is often quoted as having said that they were built well enough to shrug off a jet flying into the towers. Whether he was simply just wrong or that he should have more insight than anybody else on the strength of the towers is obviously going to be debated, but this is usually a piece of evidence that the people interest in the controlled demolition theories point towards. On a similar note they also point to an incident in 1945 where a bomber crashed into the Empire State building and stood firm without much issue to suggest the same should have happened in 9/11, though this always struck me as very weak since it doesn't account for the difference in speed, size and fuel type for the planes and structural differences between the Twin Towers and Empire State Building. 7. Passports of the Hijackers were said to be found in extremely unlikely scenarios when they should have been annihilated in the crash. Satam al-Suqami's passport is often brought up in context since it was said to be found by a passer by in New York after the planes had hit the buildings. Two other passports were recovered from flight 93. Considering that even the black boxes weren't recoverable in these crashes it seems unlikely to conspiracists that something as flimsy as a passport could survive, be found and be legible enough to give useful information. This tends to used to suggest that the official narrative around things like identifying the hijackers is highly questionable. 8. Anthrax attacks that happened in the weeks that followed had all the signs of a false flag This is the thesis of an article in 'covert action magazine', which lines up with a lot of the theories around the 9/11 attacks proper. There's lots of other things I could get into like the Pentagon missile theory, or the notion that certain high profile people in the US knew to avoid flying in the weeks before 9/11, or that US intelligence agencies were already tracking and aware of the hijackers and essentially left them to their own devices, or all kinds of things to do with Flight 93, but there are just so many things that are kicked around with 9/11 that's impossible to mention all of them. Conspiratorial minded people are also less than impressed with things like the 9/11 commission or Popular Mechanics series on the 9/11 conspiracies, offering their own responses or suggesting that they are fatally compromised by their connections to people who would have a vested interest in suppressing the truth, for example the Commission was conducted under the purview of the Bush administration and the Popular Mechanics book got a foreword by John McCain of all people. There was even a book written called 'Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and the Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory' so its a bit of a roundabout. A softer version of these conspiracies is that powerful actors within the US worked to protect people who had their hands in the attacks especially Saudi Arabians, that's about the furthest I would go in giving credence to any conspiratorial thinking with regards to 9/11 but even that doesn't have much particularly concrete stuff attached to it. Altogether I'm just hoping to get a good depository of information on 9/11 and the many theories I see around it so myself and others can have a better understanding of what happened on the day.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
Your point number two overestimates the North American air defense system in 2001 (and today, frankly) by several orders of magnitude. There are no missile batteries set up around the Pentagon or anywhere in the continental US. Even when there were (we're talking the 1960s), they weren't designed to stop civil aircraft from crashing into buildings, they were designed to fight Soviet bomber formations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 02:40
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Your point number two overestimates the North American air defense system in 2001 (and today, frankly) by several orders of magnitude. There are no missile batteries set up around the Pentagon or anywhere in the continental US. Even when there were (we're talking the 1960s), they weren't designed to stop civil aircraft from crashing into buildings, they were designed to fight Soviet bomber formations. Yeah this, the defensive measures in place in and around America were built to deal with either a civilization-ending nuclear strike or a boots on the ground invasion. There wasn't a pressing need for the ability to violently intercept aircraft that suddenly went radio silent and veered off their scheduled course
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 03:18
|
|
|
Yeah, the last Nike batteries were retired in the 70s, we haven't had an anti-aircraft defense system deployed widely in the US in 30 years prior to 9/11. ICBMs made that a thing of the past.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 03:49
|
|
|
Speaking of air defense: https://twitter.com/SeanMcCarthyCom/status/1436881451325165573 Honestly I can probably just use Sean McCarthy's twitter to keep abreast of the most currently popular theory of the day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 04:04
|
|
|
"Intercepted" is not the same thing as shot down. Those fighters would've failed to make radio contact with the planes and then watched more or less helplessly as they rammed into the towers. As it was, the only fighters that even managed to take off that day, in a failed attempt to intercept United 93, were unarmed and their pilots had agreed they would have to ram the airliner out of the sky. Sean McCarthy is one of the most prominent reasons I don't trust anyone who writes their name with a $ instead of an S and is not a rap artist or a sex worker. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Sep 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 04:37
|
|
|
Nah, I'm pretty sure previous to the Rumsfeld memo the SOP was to just shoot down airliners full of people if they deviated from their assigned routes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 07:39
|
|
|
TerminalBlue posted:Nah, I'm pretty sure previous to the Rumsfeld memo the SOP was to just shoot down airliners full of people if they deviated from their assigned routes. Imagine the conspiracies in the world the us government just randomly shot down the flight of the guy that created fraiser
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 12:16
|
|
|
Whatever happened to the original "Loose Change" video, i.e. the one where it starts by talking about Egyptian Gods, winter solstice, and how Bin Laden and the hijackers are a modern reimagination of the Nativity story?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 13:49
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Imagine the conspiracies in the world the us government just randomly shot down the flight of the guy that created fraiser "Good tone. Tossed salad and scrambled eggs. Fox 2."
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 13:53
|
|
|
A couple of years after 9/11, I was on a flight from NYC to Singapore and ended up sitting next to a guy who worked at the Brunei embassy in NYC. He confidently informed me that 9/11 had been an Israeli plot and that all the Jews who worked in the towers had been told not to come to work that day. I don't believe him of course, but I found it interesting that someone who worked for a diplomatic service was still repeating this kind of stuff, though I guess it's understandable that many Muslims would prefer to believe that it wasn't an act of Islamic terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 03:59
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:1. Insider trading in the days before 9/11 suggests some powerful people had knowledge that something was about to go down I haven't heard of this and all I could find in a few minutes of searching was this very old snopes article, but in general "<number> of papers in peer-reviewed journals confirm this" is a pretty big red flag for someone misrepresenting what the papers say.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 04:20
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:A couple of years after 9/11, I was on a flight from NYC to Singapore and ended up sitting next to a guy who worked at the Brunei embassy in NYC. He confidently informed me that 9/11 had been an Israeli plot and that all the Jews who worked in the towers had been told not to come to work that day. The world opinion polls on this Wikipedia article are a bit of a trip. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 04:28
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:The world opinion polls on this Wikipedia article are a bit of a trip. The trend I'm seeing is that countries that have Al Qaeda doing bad poo poo within their borders (Central Africa) believe the official story while countries that have gotten used to America and Israel making up excuses to bomb them went down the Truther rabbit hole
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 04:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah, the last Nike batteries were retired in the 70s, we haven't had an anti-aircraft defense system deployed widely in the US in 30 years prior to 9/11. ICBMs made that a thing of the past. Can't believe how deep the corruption goes if they knew 30 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 05:24
|
|
|
The James Corbett 9/11 video is back on YouTube and, whilst I am not some sort of tinfoil hat wearing truther by any stretch, it is an interesting watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_QFYn_G1lc Problem is, I would love to watch/read a rebuttal of the claims in the video, but nothing seems to exist. Are there any decent reading materials out there, possibly Longform articles, that takes on the conspiracy theories head on and dismantles them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 12:39
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:"Intercepted" is not the same thing as shot down. Those fighters would've failed to make radio contact with the planes and then watched more or less helplessly as they rammed into the towers. As it was, the only fighters that even managed to take off that day, in a failed attempt to intercept United 93, were unarmed and their pilots had agreed they would have to ram the airliner out of the sky. Also, like, the military wasnt notified of a hijacking until like 8:40ish. By the time they were airborne the second plane had already began its final approach. The planes also had their transponders turned off. The only plane they learned was hijacked while it was still in the air was flight 11. Which they learned was hijacked a full 9 minutes before it flew into the first tower wisconsingreg fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Sep 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
IT BURNS posted:Whatever happened to the original "Loose Change" video, i.e. the one where it starts by talking about Egyptian Gods, winter solstice, and how Bin Laden and the hijackers are a modern reimagination of the Nativity story? NYT did a good story on it, but the full thing is behind a paywall: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/08/technology/loose-change-9-11-video.html quote:I was not a particularly persuadable “Loose Change” viewer — too young, too self-absorbed, more interested in using my computer to play video games than chase down conspiracy theories. But millions of Americans were seduced. After watching it, they disappeared down rabbit holes and emerged days or weeks later as, if not full-fledged 9/11 truthers, at least passionate skeptics. They had opinions about obscure topics like nano-thermites and controlled demolition, and they could recite the melting temperatures of various construction materials. Some believed the government was actively involved; others merely thought Bush administration officials knew about the attacks in advance and allowed them to happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 23:44
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Your point number two overestimates the North American air defense system in 2001 (and today, frankly) by several orders of magnitude. There are no missile batteries set up around the Pentagon or anywhere in the continental US. Even when there were (we're talking the 1960s), they weren't designed to stop civil aircraft from crashing into buildings, they were designed to fight Soviet bomber formations. Prism towers can't target Air.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:NYT did a good story on it, but the full thing is behind a paywall: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/08/technology/loose-change-9-11-video.html I strongly suspect the author is not the first journalist to make an article like this, and Avery deserves to be hounded by every one of them
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 01:58
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:NYT did a good story on it, but the full thing is behind a paywall: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/08/technology/loose-change-9-11-video.html I never watched any of the remakes, but I had a soft spot for the original because it really loving went off the deep end at the conclusion, saying that the WTC was demolished so they could steal the gold and silver bullion underneath it. Ah, the good old days of the Bush Era...
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 23:40
|
|
|
Some architect/engineer can probably do better than me, but as far as 6 goes, the empire state building is built in an entirely different way and the plane that hit it was entirely different in a number of important ways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 23:44
|
|
|
I would really like this thread, but with JFK.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
britishbornandbread posted:The James Corbett 9/11 video is back on YouTube and, whilst I am not some sort of tinfoil hat wearing truther by any stretch, it is an interesting watch. lmao It's just the usual "the US is so strong, no way some goat herders could have overpowered this are amazing country!" bs. Might as well get into JFK conspiracies, those at least had more time to get well-rounded. Fame Douglas fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Sep 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
Tweezer Reprise posted:I would really like this thread, but with JFK.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 23:56
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Some architect/engineer can probably do better than me, but as far as 6 goes, the empire state building is built in an entirely different way and the plane that hit it was entirely different in a number of important ways. regarding the building, the empire state building is way "overbuilt" for what needs to be. it is made of a bunch of heavy steel and masonry, as was the style of early skyscrapers. in fact, from the period 1880-1920 skyscrapers were evolving quickly as architects learned more about how to engineer and build ever taller buildings. remember that all of this work was being done without computers, being drafted and calculated by hand, so the safety factor was a bit larger than architects use today (if we think of safety factor as extra materials, thus extra cost, you want to shave this down a bit but not too much, for safety). as tall buildings shifted from all-masonry, to masonry supported by steel, to a steel/masonry hybrid, architects were busy figuring out optimal balances of both. you can really only build about 10 stories tall with all masonry construction, before the bottom walls are too thick to have windows or doors. (10 stories is already above the practical limit of daily stair climbing, this is why poor people before elevators lived in the attic) steel lets you get a lot, lot taller, shifting the structure of the building from internal masonry supports to a steel skeleton with a masonry wrapper the empire state building itself was also caught up in a roaring twenties race to have the tallest building. as architects got better at building bigger, then everyone wanted to have the biggest building. especially everyone in new york, it was a for real race to have the biggest dick in town. the plans for the empire state building and its immediate precursors kept getting taller and taller, so there's a bit of 'extra' in the design just in case yet another set of revisions came along trying to stack another five floors on top. while the empire state building is near the limit of practical engineering for the time, the main reason it was capped was because it was already The Tallest and also there was concern that additional floors would be increasingly difficult to rent, so they capped the whole thing off with a ridiculous zeppelin mooring mast and signed off in comparison, the WTC is a hallmark of late international modernist design. instead of the empire state, which is basically a shitload of interlocking steel girders with a heavy masonry shell, the WTC 1 and 2 were a very tall core pillar of elevator and service tubes, around which a bunch of floorspace hung. imagine a giant concrete tree trunk, encased in a thin steel and glass truss. on neither building was the outer shell structurally supportive, but with the WTC the outer skin handled stress redistribution and wind load more than the outer skin of the empire state building, which was primarily decorative and to keep the weather out. both buildings are well designed, but the WTC 1 and 2 towers could be bigger and have more floor space relative to the cost, which is your goal when you're building an enormous tower now, regarding the planes. the plane which hit the empire state was a ww2 vintage b-25 medium bomber. this plane had two propeller engines, had a maximum weight of 30 tons fully loaded, and a maximum speed of about 270 mph. both the WTC towers were struck by variants of the boeing 767, a modern jetliner which has a max speed roughly twice as fast, and a maximum weight roughly five times greater than the b-25, depending on configuration. the 767 is a modern, much bigger, much faster plane the b-25 which hit the empire state building was transporting people between military bases when the pilot became disoriented in a thick fog over new york. he took a wrong turn and flew right into the side of the empire state building. the plane was not fully loaded, it had no weaponry on board and an adequate but not full load of fuel. the pilot was flying at a slow rate of speed because he was navigating in poor visibility over a city, and so he slowed down a bit to try to figure out where he was and also, to not crash into anything in comparison, the hijacked 767s were fully loaded with fuel. the hijackers specifically targeted cross country flights because they would have more fuel, because due to the fact that lugging fuel around costs fuel and thus money, common aeronautical practice is to just put in as much fuel as you need to get to where you're going plus a bit extra to be safe. a flight going from NYC to boston will have much less gas on board than one going from NYC to LA. the hijackers then flew these fully loaded planes at maximum speed into the towers in broad daylight, for maximum damage both buildings were completely penetrated by aircraft debris. because the empire state building had thicker walls, relatively heavier internal construction, and was struck by a smaller plane traveling at a slower speed with less explosive potential, the amount of damage done to the building was relatively lesser. the damage was mostly localized to the immediate location of the strike. on the other hand, both WTC 1 and 2 were struck by aircraft roughly five times larger, traveling roughly five times faster, and with a much larger quantity of explosive fuel on board. this damage was spread all through the building. in all cases, the aircraft strikes started fires, but because of the massive damage done to the internal core of WTC 1 and 2, fire response was unable to begin fighting the fire before the structures collapsed the heavier masonry walls and lighter force applied meant that the damage to the empire state building was never critical. a dozenish people died, mostly due to the immediate strike, which took out two adjoining office suites on a high floor and set them on fire. the structure of the building was not compromised, and the repairs were largely cosmetic. on the other hand, both WTC towers found their internal cores completely severed due to the speed and violence of the aircraft strike, which had a number of effects -it compromised the ability of victims to escape, and first responders to assist -it compromised the structural integrity of the building itself -it allowed fire to spread from the immediate site of the impact (which was itself much larger) into adjacent areas that's about as good of a summary as i can spit out. total apples to oranges when it comes to aircraft flying into buildings and killing people
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2021 01:03
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:lmao This doesn't even begin to characterize what the video says, or any of its claims. The entire point of the thread is to debunk conspiracy claims. You might bother to do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2021 03:18
|
|
|
britishbornandbread posted:The James Corbett 9/11 video is back on YouTube and, whilst I am not some sort of tinfoil hat wearing truther by any stretch, it is an interesting watch. Obviously going through every claim is, well, what the thread is for, so I isolated two related claims to check on because it sounds pretty crazy! Here's the claims: 1. Donald Rumsfeld announced the pentagon had $2.3 trillion missing on Sept. 10, 2001 2. Flight 77 hit the budget office of the pentagon where researching the fate of this money was going on. (1) is easy to start on. Donald Rumsfeld's speech on the Pentagon on September 10 is https://www.c-span.org/video/?165947-1/defense-business-practices - At 13:57 he starts talking and says "According to some estimates we cannot track two point three trillion dollars in transactions." (He goes on at some length before and after). A CBS article in 2002 elaborates on the topic: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-war-on-waste/. quote:To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million. Looking at a more modern claim of the Pentagon missing money, the NY Times valiantly comes to the defense of the Pentagon: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/us/politics/fact-check-pentagon-medicare-alexandria-ocasio-cortez.html: quote:In the 2015 fiscal year, the Army general fund reported making about $1 trillion worth of adjustments to its assets, according to the Defense Department’s inspector general. It also made about $1 trillion in adjustment to its liabilities. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/pentagon-audit-budget-fraud/ quote:On November 15, Ernst & Young and other private firms that were hired to audit the Pentagon announced that they could not complete the job. Congress had ordered an independent audit of the Department of Defense, the government’s largest discretionary cost center—the Pentagon receives 54 cents out of every dollar in federal appropriations—after the Pentagon failed for decades to audit itself. The firms concluded, however, that the DoD’s financial records were riddled with so many bookkeeping deficiencies, irregularities, and errors that a reliable audit was simply impossible. In an institution that can't be audited, corruption and fraud almost certainly are taking place. Claim (1) speaks to an institutional problem with the DoD that was not new in 2001, nor, does it seem, that there has been progress made in 2021, and is clearly true. The video isolates this fact without that context, which is misleading. In looking at the larger context of a 9/11 conspiracy claim, I doubt it causes anyone to budge from a held position one way or another: A 9/11 conspiracy believer can clearly see institutional corruption at work. A 9/11 conspiracy denier can just as easily point to the problem as a long term, unrelated thing that both preceded Bush and that continues on to this day. Claim (2) is that it hit the budget office. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/pentagon/Pentagon9-11.pdf - I'm going to assume that a defense.gov source from the Office of the Secretary of Defense is a conservative enough source of facts for everyone. Page 14 - 16 cover the route of the plane, including the corkscrew maneuver done just before impact and witness statements and evidence (such as damaged light poles) that speak to how low the plane was flying just prior to impact. However, investigating a third claim, which casts doubt on the official story by alluding to the difficulty of this maneuver and the ability of the hijacker pilot, is beyond the scope of our investigation here. The report continues, describing the section of the Pentagon hit on page 17: First floor, wedge 1, and then in. (Page 7 and 18 have maps and diagrams; Page 21 shows the path of the aircraft through the first floor). By page 28, we get some evidence for the claim: quote:RSW [Resource Service's Washington]'s Program and Budget Division, hit especially hard, lost 25 of its 28 members. Across the E Ring hallway, along the outside wall of the building, the jet's impact proved almost as lethaL Of the Managerial Accounting Division's 12 members present, only 3 survived. For these three the fireball and partial collapse of a wall almost proved their undoing; not one escaped without injury. All told, 34 of the 40 members of the Program and Budget and Managerial Accounting Divisions present that morning perished. We can certainly say, then, that budget related offices were hit, so claim 2 is at least partially true. Were those offices researching discrepancies? Well, for a clearly large chunk of staff, knowing what they were working on is impossible, because they died. I haven't done enough research at this point to say if the budget offices were working on the transaction gaps specifically. However, even if we take (2) as totally true, the claims in the video of (1) and (2) are designed to arouse suspicion in the viewer; of course they cannot prove conspiracy without a doubt. Even if we do assume 9/11 was a conspiracy and that, say, Bush was remotely piloting flight 77 himself, the location of the Pentagon that was hit could be coincidental and the budget problems unrelated. After all, any analysis of conspiracy should be able to point out objectives the conspiracy was to accomplish (which would be a much larger discussion, also beyond the scope of this post). Either way, the tactic of the video is obviously to raise enough incongruities with the official story that the viewer begins to see a pattern of coincidences so unlikely that they can't help but suspect a more sinister plan in the background, and perhaps does more research. That said, researching this and typing this all up takes way too long so that's enough for today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2021 06:39
|
|
|
Can you explain the video evidence and eye witness testimony of numerous explosions occurring out of sync with the planes, one occurring before they had even hit? Specifically eye witness testimony of an explosion in world trade center 7? Can you explain the video evidence of squibs occurring dozens of floors below the pancaking collapse? Can you explain the fact that out of dozens of cameras filming the section of the pentagon hit, only one with suspiciously missing frames was released? Can you explain the fact that no timestamped video evidence of the hijackers getting on the planes has ever been released? I was where you guys were a week ago, the most I'd indulge was there being some covered eyes and crossed fingers from the usual suspects, this poo poo isn't even a well kept secret, it's a joke. I took the grillpill but please don't be a willing patsy. lurker2006 fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Sep 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2021 07:49
|
|
|
lurker2006 posted:Can you explain the video evidence of squibs occurring dozens of floors below the pancaking collapse? The buildings didn't collapse from the top down, they collapsed from high down, the likelihood of each floor failing being determined by how much damage it had sustained and how much load/impact it was carrying/being hit by. The floors carrying the most load were at the bottom, but they were the least damaged. The floors right at the top might have been significantly damaged, but they weren't carrying much load. The floors around three quarters of the way up were very badly damaged and also carrying a significant load of higher floors. Once one floor had failed it began to carry additional floors with it due to the tremendous impact of about a quarter of the building falling 3 metres. And I can't say I've ever noticed anything suspicious about what was happening below the point of failure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2021 08:34
|
|
|
lurker2006 posted:Can you explain the video evidence and eye witness testimony of numerous explosions occurring out of sync with the planes, one occurring before they had even hit? Specifically eye witness testimony of an explosion in world trade center 7? I have video evidence of Lyndon B. Johnson being mooned by Forrest Gump. Eye witness testimony is very unreliable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony Also, your whole angle is wrong. It's not I who has to prove that something didn't happen, but you have to prove that what you're stating happened. Eye witness testimony and video evidence alone are not convincing due to their issues, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2021 11:05
|
|
|
lurker2006 posted:Can you explain the video evidence and eye witness testimony of numerous explosions occurring out of sync with the planes, one occurring before they had even hit? Specifically eye witness testimony of an explosion in world trade center 7? If you want to post examples of witness testimony (and their sources) and/or a video or video series that supports a claim, and perhaps discuss, or post a source that discusses, why an official explanation for something is insufficient, that would be more useful than a drive-by post like this. For example, why is the missing video footage of the Pentagon getting hit suspicious? What does that imply? Or you could go into building 7 stuff. But you'll need to present something with substance to give people something to work with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2021 14:36
|
|
|
lurker2006 posted:Can you explain the video evidence and eye witness testimony of numerous explosions occurring out of sync with the planes, one occurring before they had even hit? Specifically eye witness testimony of an explosion in world trade center 7? eye witness testimony is unreliable, and what proof do you have of these numerous out of sync explosions? lurker2006 posted:Can you explain the video evidence of squibs occurring dozens of floors below the pancaking collapse? it is compressed air being pushed down by the weight of building movement from above, the controlled demolition theory is already extremely debunked because it is very hollywood. a duffel bag of explosives isn't going to cut it and prepping columns for demolition would be extremely noticed lurker2006 posted:Can you explain the fact that out of dozens of cameras filming the section of the pentagon hit, only one with suspiciously missing frames was released? do you have proof there were dozens of cameras filming the pentagon exterior? why would this be the case? lurker2006 posted:Can you explain the fact that no timestamped video evidence of the hijackers getting on the planes has ever been released? likewise, in 2001, there is not constant recording of public spaces as became ubiquitous later (partially because of 9/11). even at this time the best you'd often get is security reusing the same vhs tape until it is completely fuzzed out. why would there be a film record of people boarding planes? as other posters above have stated, you need to make assertive proof of your claims rather than asking other people to prove your negatives ("can you prove this DIDN"T happen?") what you're really looking for is not evidence, but further reasons to entrench what it is you already feel like is the truth
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2021 14:45
|
|
|
actually, i'm not even sure what you're getting at here. your points 2 and 4 point assumes video evidence is valid and airplanes are involved, but your point 3 about suspiciously missing frames seems to hint that you think something other than an airplane hit the pentagon please take a moment to think about what you actually believe happened, and find some proof of that, rather than JAQing about what you feel happened and that something shadowy and sinister happened somewhere in some way. be specific
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2021 15:00
|
|
|
lurker2006 posted:Can you explain the video evidence and eye witness testimony of numerous explosions occurring out of sync with the planes, one occurring before they had even hit? Specifically eye witness testimony of an explosion in world trade center 7? This all sounds very compelling! I can't wait for you to post all of this evidence for people to see and understand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
lurker2006 posted:Can you explain the video evidence and eye witness testimony of numerous explosions occurring out of sync with the planes, one occurring before they had even hit? Specifically eye witness testimony of an explosion in world trade center 7? I have no idea what testimony you're talking about--and you almost certainly don't either--but as for "squibs" it's common for tall buildings that are in use when they collapse to have loads of flashes of light as they fall and the electrical system gets torn apart. You expect these flashes to be slightly ahead of the collapse because the structural elements have to buckle before the above floor can fall down. You can see an example of this in the recent collapse in Florida. It reliably produces all kinds of conspiracy theories. It's completely unsurprising that there's no footage of the plane hitting the pentagon because in addition to there not being ubiquitous smart phones in 2001, any security cameras are going to be pointed at, y'know, things worth surveilling: entrances or the parking lot. Not at the sky. The pentagon has a huge parking lot and major roads on all sides, which is what produced the odd lot shape that led them to making it a pentagon in the first place. The closest it has to neighboring buildings are far enough away that security cameras would have to be aimed in truly stupid directions to incidentally capture the plane. There were not, in fact, dozens of cameras pointed at that random section of wall. That's just a straight-up lie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2021 20:10
|
|
|
Well There's Your Problem covered the WTC tower collapse pretty well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Qop_64qqk
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:regarding the building, the empire state building is way "overbuilt" for what needs to be. it is made of a bunch of heavy steel and masonry, as was the style of early skyscrapers. in fact, from the period 1880-1920 skyscrapers were evolving quickly as architects learned more about how to engineer and build ever taller buildings. remember that all of this work was being done without computers, being drafted and calculated by hand, so the safety factor was a bit larger than architects use today (if we think of safety factor as extra materials, thus extra cost, you want to shave this down a bit but not too much, for safety). as tall buildings shifted from all-masonry, to masonry supported by steel, to a steel/masonry hybrid, architects were busy figuring out optimal balances of both. you can really only build about 10 stories tall with all masonry construction, before the bottom walls are too thick to have windows or doors. (10 stories is already above the practical limit of daily stair climbing, this is why poor people before elevators lived in the attic) steel lets you get a lot, lot taller, shifting the structure of the building from internal masonry supports to a steel skeleton with a masonry wrapper This is a very good and detailed post from an incredibly unfortunate username 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
Y'all are gonna be blown the f away when Jim Carrey spills the beans on his deathbed
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
no hay camino posted:Y'all are gonna be blown the f away when Jim Carrey spills the beans on his deathbed I feel like Jim Carrey was nowhere in conspiracy theories* and then last week Knowledge Fight did a profile on someone who thinks Biden is secretly him in old-age makeup. What gives? *Well yeah, he's married to anti-vaxx Patient Zero but even at the height of that he was all "She's just looking for answers after our son got diagnosed, don't get too mad at her" not dismissing but not giving his full-throated support either
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 00:54
|
|