Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

9/11 Was.....fake?


  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

#26 RandomNameIgnoreIt

RandomNameIgnoreIt
  • 1828 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 February 2006 - 09:31 PM

And yet a few months ago everyone was asleep on the fact that Bush's administration was spying domestically. Well look at that now.
Not that hard to keep a secret is it?

What about Nixon and Watergate? What was that before it was confirmed? Not a conspiracy theory?


...They didn't keep it a secret. We know about it now. So um... yeah. How can you use examples of things we found out to prove that we don't find out things like this >_>

#27 Alex

Alex
  • 6640 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 February 2006 - 09:36 PM

...They didn't keep it a secret. We know about it now. So um... yeah. How can you use examples of things we found out to prove that we don't find out things like this >_>

Im not proving anything. Im saying its a possibility. I edited my post a bit late so...
"I understand where you are coming from, and a lot of things in the video trully are far fetched. However, 9/11 did give Bush the exact leverage needed for him to do anything he pretty much wanted."

Watergate was just as much as a conspiracy theory as this. Until it was proven.

#28 Mitch

Mitch
  • 1237 posts

Posted 22 February 2006 - 09:38 PM

The video aside, if all these conspiracy theories were real, someone would have found out already and it'd be all over the news. Why do you think it's little independent films like this that say these things, and not reputable news outlets? Because it's BS.


Agreed. Look The vice presi shoots a guy with these little bbs he comes out great press makes a BIG DEAL over just that. Now this conspiracy is just absurd. You would think that if the vice presi shoots a guy and hits him with pellets and he comes out super fine and it's all over the news then the WTC attacks and paentagon attack would be all over the news and democrats would jump on this like white on rice in a glass of milk thats on a paper plate in a snowstorm. (notice those are all white) and it would STILL be all over the news and bush would be impeached by now. Like 3 years ago.

#29 |nfinite

|nfinite
  • 181 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 12:57 AM

The proof of the buildings coming down with explosions pretty much explained how "9/11" was fake.

Some of you need to watch the whole thing before you start posting saying "IT'S NOT FAKE."

Edited by |nfinite, 23 February 2006 - 12:57 AM.


#30 Brad

Brad
  • How about a magic trick?

  • 4565 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 03:43 AM

The proof of the buildings coming down with explosions pretty much explained how "9/11" was fake.

Some of you need to watch the whole thing before you start posting saying "IT'S NOT FAKE."


I watched the whole thing. The video seems like complete bullshit to me, but you're entitled to your opinion as well.

One more thing. Would you like to buy this DVD Rewinder?

#31 RandomNameIgnoreIt

RandomNameIgnoreIt
  • 1828 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 05:09 AM

The proof of the buildings coming down with explosions pretty much explained how "9/11" was fake.

Some of you need to watch the whole thing before you start posting saying "IT'S NOT FAKE."


I find it hard to believe that after pointing out mere coincidences, and pulling random crap out of his butt the entire documentary, the guy would actually come up with something concrete that proves it, but after work today I'll watch the rest that I didn't yesterday and I highly doubt I'll be convinced. But I guess we'll see.

#32 Joey

Joey
  • 782 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 05:29 AM

I was in new york when it happened..

#33 Mitch

Mitch
  • 1237 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 05:39 AM

Couldn't the 'thuds' heard in the little sound thing be from a floor collapsing? and a little later the next floor caveing in and then it fell (he says it was 9 seconds b4) and also that crap comeing outta the side was from it caveing it and that busts out windows and releases basicaly what ever dust, papers, anything that can be omved easliy by air.

#34 Mason

Mason
  • 950 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 08:13 AM

The proof of the buildings coming down with explosions pretty much explained how "9/11" was fake.

Some of you need to watch the whole thing before you start posting saying "IT'S NOT FAKE."


You're right, an explosion did cause the building to collapse.

However, the explosion was caused by jet fuel, not any sort of explosive device.

#35 |nfinite

|nfinite
  • 181 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 10:13 AM

You're right, an explosion did cause the building to collapse.

However, the explosion was caused by jet fuel, not any sort of explosive device.


Did you not watch the whole video?

He explains that there's no way a fire can travel down 80+ stories DOWN and be able to ignite something to cause several explosions.

Please watch the whole video before posting.

#36 Raillery

Raillery
  • 353 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 10:24 AM

All of you who argue so strongly that it was real are just as bad as the extreme conspiracy theorists.

For those who say that the building collapsed so perfectly (straight down) because the floors collapsed under one another, think about this. As the floors fall down on top of one another, there would be a slow down. The building fell at freefall speed. There was no slowdown in the building as it collapsed, it just went straight down, that's that.

Also, explosive squibs can be seen in the building if you look at the videos of it going down. You can see parts of the building explode outwards doezens of feet before the collapse of the building reaches it.

I'm not saying planes didn't hit the WTC, no one said that. Planes did hit them, but whose planes were they? The planes did not look like American Airlines at all and if you look closely at the bottom of a plane hitting the second tower, you can see a "bubble" on the bottom of it. The planes bottom that hit the WTC doesn't look like the underbelly of an American Airlines at all, compare the two. The thing attached to the bottom of the plane, there is no way that an American Airlines passenger jet would have been able to fly away with that on the bottom and have no one notice.

Also, i belive it's called. . .building 9, i'm not sure of the number. But, shortly after the towers had collapsed Building 9 was demolshed because of the effects the debris had had on the building. Now, it takes weeks and weeks to set up a demolition. No demolition team in the WORLD can set up a building to be demolished in a matter of hours. What I'm saying by this, is building 9 was already set up to be demolished. Why though? Why set up a building with explosives to be demolished if you don't foresee it going down anytime in the near future? The answer is you don't, they knew Building 9 was coming down. It didn't go down because of the effect the falling WTC buildings had on it.

Steel buildings have burnt for DAYS and not collapsed. What makes the WTC an different? The flames can barely be seen at all and in one of the pictures of where the plane had hit the 2nd tower, you can see a woman looking out of the hole. If there had been an enourmous ammount of flames inside there, first of all we would be able to see them. Secondly, a woman would definetly not be able to be standing right where the plane had entered.

The steel from the WTC was shipped off immediatly after the collapse and has never been examined.

The concrete from the building was pulverized into DUST. If the buildings had just fallen down it would've broken into pieces, not into dust. You've seen the dust cloud created by the WTC falling. Think about it, if you drop a brick from 200 feet in the air, it's going to just break into pieces. It will not shatter into dust.

Why did the concrete shatter into dust then? What has enough power to do that?

Explosives.

I'm at school now, I'll give all my sources (and pictures of the underbellies, etc) later today hopefully.

Please disprove what I have said. I would like to think that 9/11 really happened like I was told. I don't want to think this was set up and we were lied to, but that is sure what it looks like.

#37 Wicked

Wicked
  • 2057 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 10:37 AM

No matter who tells me what, it happened. The towers are gone. People I know are gone. And there are men right now across the ocean fighting the was that was caused by 9/11. I'm tried of people saying "it didn't really happen." What do think this world is? A dream? This is real. That day was real. So go ahead and pinch yourselves to see you are awake.

#38 |nfinite

|nfinite
  • 181 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 10:48 AM

No matter who tells me what, it happened. The towers are gone. People I know are gone. And there are men right now across the ocean fighting the was that was caused by 9/11. I'm tried of people saying "it didn't really happen." What do think this world is? A dream? This is real. That day was real. So go ahead and pinch yourselves to see you are awake.


Perhaps you're misunderstanding everything.

The event was "Fake" in the sense that "Terrorists" were not behind the attack, and that it was a "Self-Inflicted" wound on our account.

Sure people died.

In the eyes of the rich and the powerful, lives don't mean anything.

All that matters to them is power and money.

Now, if you watch until the end of the video, it'll explain that under the two towers, there was a gold depository. Building 7 that collapsed from the "Debris" was a building in which held important files as to the plans of both buildings, taxes, and some other important documents.

#39 Wicked

Wicked
  • 2057 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 10:56 AM

Perhaps you're misunderstanding everything.

The event was "Fake" in the sense that "Terrorists" were not behind the attack, and that it was a "Self-Inflicted" wound on our account.

Sure people died.

In the eyes of the rich and the powerful, lives don't mean anything.

All that matters to them is power and money.

Now, if you watch until the end of the video, it'll explain that under the two towers, there was a gold depository. Building 7 that collapsed from the "Debris" was a building in which held important files as to the plans of both buildings, taxes, and some other important documents.


It all depends on what your defition of "Terrorists" is. Terrorists are people who kill people like me and you for a purpose of scaring people. Even if this was "self-inflicted", the people who did it were still "terrorists". Even the rich and powerful can be "terrorists" even if they try to hide every mistake of the world. They may use money to hide what they done, but they still did what they did. My point is that the people were killed by "terrorist", doesn't matter what or who killed them.

#40 |nfinite

|nfinite
  • 181 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 11:06 AM

I put "Terrorists" in quotes since "Terrorists" are automatically assumed to be Middle Easterners, or Muslims.

I know what a real Terrorist is and what they want to accomplish.

So, it seems that Bush is a terrorist, correct?

#41 Wicked

Wicked
  • 2057 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 11:09 AM

I put "Terrorists" in quotes since "Terrorists" are automatically assumed to be Middle Easterners, or Muslims.

I know what a real Terrorist is and what they want to accomplish.

So, it seems that Bush is a terrorist, correct?


Depends on your opinion. If you feel that Bush is a terrorist, then that is up to you.

Edited by Shadowwolves, 23 February 2006 - 11:11 AM.


#42 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 11:18 AM

One's man freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

9/11 happened and no theories around it would of stopped it coming true, I don't believe conspiracy theories on the basis there is always little proof behind it, and if there is, it's little tidbits that if all added up, don't make much diffrence.

#43 |nfinite

|nfinite
  • 181 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 11:19 AM

Depends on your opinion. If you feel that Bush is a terrorist, then that is up to you.


We are fighting for "Freedom" but in their eyes, we are the true terrorists, and I agree that we are the terrorists.

You and I both know that a Terrorist is someone who wants to use a "Scare" tactic, isn't that correct?

So, here we are, in Iraq, fighting "Terrorists"...

But before I go on, let me tell you that my co-worker/friend of mine was in Iraq. He has killed at least 70 people. Now let me ask you something:

Is a terrorist someone that doesn't have a weapon? Someone that is a registered "target", but is innocent to any wrong doing?

Because alot of the people that my co-worker killed while he was under order of OUR Government, had no weapons, had families, were innocent, but were still registered as targets.

So let me ask you something else:

Do you think the Iraqi's are scared of America? Does it make you sleep better knowing that someone is afraid of a country that is supposed to be the "Big Brother"?

There's why a reason why we have alot of enimies as a country.

To start off :

We're in Denial.
We don't like to admit that we're wrong.
We are hypocrites.
We don't see our own wrong-doings.
We abuse our power.
We're power hungry.
We're rich, but we're wasting our money fighting a "War" that shouldn't be fought. We could use the 1 trillion or so dollars that we spent to go to research for cures for diseases.
We lie.
We support a man who looks like he should be locked up in a Zoo, eating bananas and peanuts.

Point?

Edited by |nfinite, 23 February 2006 - 11:21 AM.


#44 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 11:25 AM

If the "point?" was directed at me, I was just stating my opinion.

#45 Wicked

Wicked
  • 2057 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 11:26 AM

We are fighting for "Freedom" but in their eyes, we are the true terrorists, and I agree that we are the terrorists.

You and I both know that a Terrorist is someone who wants to use a "Scare" tactic, isn't that correct?

So, here we are, in Iraq, fighting "Terrorists"...

But before I go on, let me tell you that my co-worker/friend of mine was in Iraq. He has killed at least 70 people. Now let me ask you something:

Is a terrorist someone that doesn't have a weapon? Someone that is a registered "target", but is innocent to any wrong doing?

Because alot of the people that my co-worker killed while he was under order of OUR Government, had no weapons, had families, were innocent, but were still registered as targets.

So let me ask you something else:

Do you think the Iraqi's are scared of America? Does it make you sleep better knowing that someone is afraid of a country that is supposed to be the "Big Brother"?

There's why a reason why we have alot of enimies as a country.

To start off :

We're in Denial.
We don't like to admit that we're wrong.
We are hypocrites.
We don't see our own wrong-doings.
We abuse our power.
We're power hungry.
We're rich, but we're wasting our money fighting a "War" that shouldn't be fought. We could use the 1 trillion or so dollars that we spent to go to research for cures for diseases.
We lie.
We support a man who looks like he should be locked up in a Zoo, eating bananas and peanuts.

Point?


I'm not saying the war isnot wrong, I'm saying that we were hit by terrorists. My Uncle was in Iraq and who knows how many were killed. I'm not saying we are not terrorist now but...
My friends dad and cousin died in those towers. Other one my friend's cousin was killed in Iraq. Don't tell me that that didn't happen.

#46 Ives

Ives
  • 4320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 11:38 AM

Theres always been lies in the goverment. >_<

#47 |nfinite

|nfinite
  • 181 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 12:28 PM

I'm not saying the war isnot wrong, I'm saying that we were hit by terrorists. My Uncle was in Iraq and who knows how many were killed. I'm not saying we are not terrorist now but...
My friends dad and cousin died in those towers. Other one my friend's cousin was killed in Iraq. Don't tell me that that didn't happen.


I'm not saying that 9/11 didn't happen, I'm saying that it was staged.

People really did die in that event.

You're misunderstanding.

#48 Mitch

Mitch
  • 1237 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 02:11 PM

All of you who argue so strongly that it was real are just as bad as the extreme conspiracy theorists.

For those who say that the building collapsed so perfectly (straight down) because the floors collapsed under one another, think about this. As the floors fall down on top of one another, there would be a slow down. The building fell at freefall speed. There was no slowdown in the building as it collapsed, it just went straight down, that's that.




Think about this. Floors are supposed to ONLY hold people up and support that part of the building... Now we have 40+ stories falling on it... don't you think thats WAY FUCKING OVER THE WEIGHT THAT FLOOR IS SUPPOSED TO HOLD? Just think about before you say OMFG YOU GUYS SUX AND THIS IS WRONG.

#49 |nfinite

|nfinite
  • 181 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2006 - 02:26 PM

Think about this. Floors are supposed to ONLY hold people up and support that part of the building... Now we have 40+ stories falling on it... don't you think thats WAY FUCKING OVER THE WEIGHT THAT FLOOR IS SUPPOSED TO HOLD? Just think about before you say OMFG YOU GUYS SUX AND THIS IS WRONG.


Another misunderstanding.

If you watched the video, he'll tell you about an equation for free falling objects.

If an object is in free fall, at that height, it would take 9 seconds to hit the ground and be done, in which case, the buildings hit the ground in 9 seconds, thus meaning they were in free fall.

If they were not in free fall, the building would have collapsed in a time longer than 9 seconds, because it is not in free fall. The floor would collapse and decelerate as it gets closer to the ground.

#50 Raillery

Raillery
  • 353 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 02:33 PM

Think about this. Floors are supposed to ONLY hold people up and support that part of the building... Now we have 40+ stories falling on it... don't you think thats WAY FUCKING OVER THE WEIGHT THAT FLOOR IS SUPPOSED TO HOLD? Just think about before you say OMFG YOU GUYS SUX AND THIS IS WRONG.


First of all, I fail to see your point in this. Are you saying that the floors would have still fallen at freefall speed because of the ammount of floors falling on one another? Or are you saying something else, because you worded yourself very unclearly there.

Maybe you didn't understand what i was saying about the floors collapsing, I said that the floors fell at a freefall speed, I never said they didn't fall at all. I won't deny that all the floors falling on one another is more than the floors were meant to hold, got me there.

However,

If the floors did fall on oneanother, then the building would not have collapsed at the speed that it did. Look at the videos, you can clearly see the building falls straight down, no slowdown what so ever. Look at the seismograph that was taken when the towers fell down, it shows the exact fall time.

If the falls did fall on eachother the building would have gone down slower. Maybe the floors did fall on eachother, but the building went down too fast.

Clear?


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users