Do you believe in any conspiracy theories?

This:

[QUOTE="Ensamheten"]

[QUOTE="TheShadowLord07"] question: can that be a possiblity for 9/11 aswell?

PannicAtack

watch this between 21.19 and 35:10

And then this 1:25:11 1:33.06

While I don't belive on all the reasons for it I agree on that some strange things happened

However, the Lusitania was not said pretext. That would be the Zimmerman Telegram. That he talks about "the cause of WWI" and doesn't mention the Zimmerman Telegram is dodgy, to say the least.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] The plane was confirmed by the countless eyewitnesses, the debris found, and the passenger DNA.PannicAtack

How far, exactly, would you have to go to stage that many witnesses? Or all that plane debris? Next to a busy highway, of all things? If it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, someone would have reported seeing a missile. But nobody did. The witnesses corroborate a plane hitting the building.

The evidence that points to a plane hitting the Pentagon - that is, eyewitness testimony and physical evidence - outweighs the evidence pointing to a plane not hitting the Pentagon - that is, pure supposition.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="Ensamheten"]Well govorments have attacked themselves and then blamed it on others before but I don't think that is the situation with the Twin Towers

watch this between 21.19 and 35:10

And then this 1:25:11 1:33.06

While I don't belive on all the reasons for it I agree on that some strange things happened

Ensamheten

However, the Lusitania was not said pretext. That would be the Zimmerman Telegram. That he talks about "the cause of WWI" and doesn't mention the Zimmerman Telegram is dodgy, to say the least.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]The difference is, everything you mentioned is stageable, what isn't stageable is a video of an actual plane hitting the building. come on, with all of those security cameras watching that field, not one of them caught the plane, except for a crappy camera which didn't even show a confirmed plane or didn't catch the actual impact due to a freakin pole in the way? How convenient. Maybe those cameras did catch the action and they're just not releasing them because of the truth they hold? I guarantee if I walked within 100 yards of that field I would be swarmed in an instant. This isn't the holiday inn, its the headquarters to the United States Department of Defense.

racer8dan

How far, exactly, would you have to go to stage that many witnesses? Or all that plane debris? Next to a busy highway, of all things? If it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, someone would have reported seeing a missile. But nobody did. The witnesses corroborate a plane hitting the building.

The evidence that points to a plane hitting the Pentagon - that is, eyewitness testimony and physical evidence - outweighs the evidence pointing to a plane not hitting the Pentagon - that is, pure supposition.

In any case, what does it matter? I doubt you'd be convinced even if there were a dozen videos of a plane hitting the building.

As it still stands, the evidence that a plane hit the building vastly outweighs the evidence that a plane did not hit the building.

Conspiracy theorists are good for a laugh.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] There are a lot of no-planers that would argue the videos are "stageable."

How far, exactly, would you have to go to stage that many witnesses? Or all that plane debris? Next to a busy highway, of all things? If it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, someone would have reported seeing a missile. But nobody did. The witnesses corroborate a plane hitting the building.

The evidence that points to a plane hitting the Pentagon - that is, eyewitness testimony and physical evidence - outweighs the evidence pointing to a plane not hitting the Pentagon - that is, pure supposition.

PannicAtack

In any case, what does it matter? I doubt you'd be convinced even if there were a dozen videos of a plane hitting the building.

As it still stands, the evidence that a plane hit the building vastly outweighs the evidence that a plane did not hit the building.

Official video:

This seems a bit more realistic.



Ok, I'm done now:P

Define "conspiracy theory", then I'll be able to come up with an answer.

Regardless, I do regard those who immediately dismiss conspiracy theories as garbage without thinking as ignorant.

..

Nothing really specifically, though I do believe there are aliens out there. Whether or not they've had contact with the federal government is a different story, though.

The one question that always gets me about 9/11 goes beyond missing videos or mysteriously falling uninvolved buildings or disappearing planes and passengers. There is an incredible video that shows one of the towers falling. The timing shows the building fell at just about the speed of gravity (off by a little bit). This is absolutely impossible to occur because of the airplane. The building must fall slower then that because each floor has to fall down on the next (there by slowing down the fall of the entire structure)

..

I dont know if someone conspired, or if such a high level of coordination is possible without someone finding out but the building could not fall at the speed of gravity (9.81ms-2) that, just cannot happen. The only way for this to be possible is if the building was blown up floor by floor (as would occur if the building was demolished). People can argue to no end but the physics of it just dont make sensedesigner-

There is no "speed" of gravity. There is acceleration due to gravity. 32ft/sec/sec or 9.8m/sec/sec. The actual velocity is a function of acceleration due to gravity, time and resistance to falling due to the intact structure remaining below. Once the mass above the structural failure got moving, the momentum it gained would be massive compared to the ability of the remaining building below to resist it. The building structure was designed to support the static load of the building (plus some dynamic movement due to wind and small earthquakes). Since momentum is mass time velocity squared, the momentum increased at an incredible rate and the resistance of the structure below becomes an insignificant factor in the velocity equation.

I've seen the video of the windows blowing out below the collapse and heard the uninformed cry out that it is evidence of explosions. Nope. Its due to the huge amount of air inside the building being compressed by the falling mass above and finding the path of least resistance; the windows. Don't underestimate the power of air. I've seen nothing but air pressure blow down the wall of an aircraft paint hangar. Pretty impressive.

I don't believe nor deny any of them. I do, however, find some far more plausible than others.

No. All conspiracies are cut to pieces by Occam's Razor, to whit:

"The simplest explanation is usually the right one."

And most conspiracy theories are far too complex to stand up to this.

[QUOTE="designer-"]The one question that always gets me about 9/11 goes beyond missing videos or mysteriously falling uninvolved buildings or disappearing planes and passengers. There is an incredible video that shows one of the towers falling. The timing shows the building fell at just about the speed of gravity (off by a little bit). This is absolutely impossible to occur because of the airplane. The building must fall slower then that because each floor has to fall down on the next (there by slowing down the fall of the entire structure)

..

I dont know if someone conspired, or if such a high level of coordination is possible without someone finding out but the building could not fall at the speed of gravity (9.81ms-2) that, just cannot happen. The only way for this to be possible is if the building was blown up floor by floor (as would occur if the building was demolished). People can argue to no end but the physics of it just dont make sensecollegeboy64

There is no "speed" of gravity. There is acceleration due to gravity. 32ft/sec/sec or 9.8m/sec/sec. The actual velocity is a function of acceleration due to gravity, time and resistance to falling due to the intact structure remaining below. Once the mass above the structural failure got moving, the momentum it gained would be massive compared to the ability of the remaining building below to resist it. The building structure was designed to support the static load of the building (plus some dynamic movement due to wind and small earthquakes). Since momentum is mass time velocity squared, the momentum increased at an incredible rate and the resistance of the structure below becomes an insignificant factor in the velocity equation.

I've seen the video of the windows blowing out below the collapse and heard the uninformed cry out that it is evidence of explosions. Nope. Its due to the huge amount of air inside the building being compressed by the falling mass above and finding the path of least resistance; the windows. Don't underestimate the power of air. I've seen nothing but air pressure blow down the wall of an aircraft paint hangar. Pretty impressive.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]Do you believe they don't have the videos from the multiple cameras surrounding that area?

racer8dan

In any case, what does it matter? I doubt you'd be convinced even if there were a dozen videos of a plane hitting the building.

As it still stands, the evidence that a plane hit the building vastly outweighs the evidence that a plane did not hit the building.

Official video:

This seems a bit more realistic.



Ok, I'm done now:P

Would be more realistic if the plane wasn't cropped into it

no?

There is no doubt on my end about 9/11 being pretext for war to US & Allies interests. The debatable part may come with who flew the planes and how the various buildings ended up the way they did in the end.

However, with the many put options put on the airliner stocks that were involved - the regime change that followed in Iraq and the Afghanistan War for pipeline routing effieciency- the inability to show the public the other tapes of the Pentagon hit - key witnesses going to the afterlife randonly when they were seemingly very heatly cats - the concocted tapes of Osama or rather basically all the shady stuff our government has been invloved in since 9/11 is more than enough proof that there were/are players in our own homeland and abroad that had some involvement or allowed it to happen for whatever reason 'they' have.

But it certainly wasn't America being blindsided once again by FREEDOM HATING Muslims. You guys can beleive that conspiracy if you want.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Ensamheten"]If pretext is another word for excuse and your sentece translate into "Lusitania was not the reason for entering the war" in simple English then what was it? Ensamheten

*That* was what made us enter the war. That Peter Joseph omits this, after flagging the section of his terrible movie as "the cause of World War I," is flat-out dishonest.

[QUOTE="designer-"]The one question that always gets me about 9/11 goes beyond missing videos or mysteriously falling uninvolved buildings or disappearing planes and passengers. There is an incredible video that shows one of the towers falling. The timing shows the building fell at just about the speed of gravity (off by a little bit). This is absolutely impossible to occur because of the airplane. The building must fall slower then that because each floor has to fall down on the next (there by slowing down the fall of the entire structure)

..

I dont know if someone conspired, or if such a high level of coordination is possible without someone finding out but the building could not fall at the speed of gravity (9.81ms-2) that, just cannot happen. The only way for this to be possible is if the building was blown up floor by floor (as would occur if the building was demolished). People can argue to no end but the physics of it just dont make sensecollegeboy64

There is no "speed" of gravity. There is acceleration due to gravity. 32ft/sec/sec or 9.8m/sec/sec. The actual velocity is a function of acceleration due to gravity, time and resistance to falling due to the intact structure remaining below. Once the mass above the structural failure got moving, the momentum it gained would be massive compared to the ability of the remaining building below to resist it. The building structure was designed to support the static load of the building (plus some dynamic movement due to wind and small earthquakes). Since momentum is mass time velocity squared, the momentum increased at an incredible rate and the resistance of the structure below becomes an insignificant factor in the velocity equation.

I've seen the video of the windows blowing out below the collapse and heard the uninformed cry out that it is evidence of explosions. Nope. Its due to the huge amount of air inside the building being compressed by the falling mass above and finding the path of least resistance; the windows. Don't underestimate the power of air. I've seen nothing but air pressure blow down the wall of an aircraft paint hangar. Pretty impressive.

This:

Acemaster27

I feel conspiracy theories are healthy. It's healthy to question authority instead of blindly accepting everything and never questioning.

[QUOTE="Acemaster27"]

This:

Pixel-Pirate

I feel conspiracy theories are healthy. It's healthy to question authority instead of blindly accepting everything and never questioning.

[QUOTE="Acemaster27"]

This:

Pixel-Pirate

I feel conspiracy theories are healthy. It's healthy to question authority instead of blindly accepting everything and never questioning.

That would be the bad part of Partiotism for a nation or Faith for a religion, as they both in a broad sense require you to blindly accept the given explanation

There is no doubt on my end about 9/11 being pretext for war to US & Allies interests. The debatable part may come with who flew the planes and how the various buildings ended up the way they did in the end.

However, with the many put options put on the airliner stocks that were involved - the regime change that followed in Iraq and the Afghanistan War for pipeline routing effieciency- the inability to show the public the other tapes of the Pentagon hit - key witnesses going to the afterlife randonly when they were seemingly very heatly cats - the concocted tapes of Osama or rather basically all the shady stuff our government has been invloved in since 9/11 is more than enough proof that there were/are players in our own homeland and abroad that had some involvement or allowed it to happen for whatever reason 'they' have.

But it certainly wasn't America being blindsided once again by FREEDOM HATING Muslims. You guys can beleive that conspiracy if you want.

_R34LiTY_

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] Well, one report said that of all the videos that the Pentagon took that day, there was very little relevant material. I doubt that security cameras are regularly pointed at the side of the building.

In any case, what does it matter? I doubt you'd be convinced even if there were a dozen videos of a plane hitting the building.

As it still stands, the evidence that a plane hit the building vastly outweighs the evidence that a plane did not hit the building.

_R34LiTY_

Official video:

This seems a bit more realistic.



Ok, I'm done now:P

Would be more realistic if the plane wasn't cropped into it

no?

[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Official video:

This seems a bit more realistic.



Ok, I'm done now:P

racer8dan

Would be more realistic if the plane wasn't cropped into it

no?

[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

There is no doubt on my end about 9/11 being pretext for war to US & Allies interests. The debatable part may come with who flew the planes and how the various buildings ended up the way they did in the end.

However, with the many put options put on the airliner stocks that were involved - the regime change that followed in Iraq and the Afghanistan War for pipeline routing effieciency- the inability to show the public the other tapes of the Pentagon hit - key witnesses going to the afterlife randonly when they were seemingly very heatly cats - the concocted tapes of Osama or rather basically all the shady stuff our government has been invloved in since 9/11 is more than enough proof that there were/are players in our own homeland and abroad that had some involvement or allowed it to happen for whatever reason 'they' have.

But it certainly wasn't America being blindsided once again by FREEDOM HATING Muslims. You guys can beleive that conspiracy if you want.

PannicAtack

well of course not, there are no names to put behind all this shady activity

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

There is no doubt on my end about 9/11 being pretext for war to US & Allies interests. The debatable part may come with who flew the planes and how the various buildings ended up the way they did in the end.

However, with the many put options put on the airliner stocks that were involved - the regime change that followed in Iraq and the Afghanistan War for pipeline routing effieciency- the inability to show the public the other tapes of the Pentagon hit - key witnesses going to the afterlife randonly when they were seemingly very heatly cats - the concocted tapes of Osama or rather basically all the shady stuff our government has been invloved in since 9/11 is more than enough proof that there were/are players in our own homeland and abroad that had some involvement or allowed it to happen for whatever reason 'they' have.

But it certainly wasn't America being blindsided once again by FREEDOM HATING Muslims. You guys can beleive that conspiracy if you want.

_R34LiTY_

well of course not, there are no names to put behind all this shady activity

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

Would be more realistic if the plane wasn't cropped into it

no?

PannicAtack

Were there any eye witnesses who witnessed the eye witnesses witnessing?

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]You are %100 correct. That would be a more accurate representation had there actually been a plane fly through.

racer8dan

Were there any eye witnesses who witnessed the eye witnesses witnessing?

Also, that isn't an answer. That barely even qualifies as a question. The simple fact of the matter is that there are countless witness testimonies that corroborate that a plane hit the building.

If a missile hit the building, they would have reported seeing a missile. But they didn't.

[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]No. None of that proves anything. None of that would have any meaningful sway in any court of law.

PannicAtack

well of course not, there are no names to put behind all this shady activity

This is right on with my argument. Please, any of you here that think 9/11 was an "inside job", give me your best estimate of how many people would have been involved in this incredibly large and intricate plot? And how is it that the same masterminds that pulled off this amazing plan had no plan to plant WMD in Iraq? Seriously. If W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al were such successful plotters to pull this off after only 9 months in office, how is it they had no plan to plant WMD with almost 2 years to plot and plan such a simple act of deception?

[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]No. None of that proves anything. None of that would have any meaningful sway in any court of law.

PannicAtack

well of course not, there are no names to put behind all this shady activity

Well not necessarily. There are people that are looked at with a suspicious eye, but as with both sides of this conspiracy story, no concrete proof warrants no action. And that's where we're at with the current waste of time/money & especially soldiers who are either romanced into becoming a hero for his/her nation or just looking for a way to make ends meet. All for what? A suspicion?

The "patriots" of this country are as extremely naive as those they claim to be extremely radical

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] Security cameras have crappy video quality. Nothing new. You still have nothing to counter the eyewitnesses and the physical evidence aside from "it could've been staged."

PannicAtack

Were there any eye witnesses who witnessed the eye witnesses witnessing?

Also, that isn't an answer. That barely even qualifies as a question. The simple fact of the matter is that there are countless witness testimonies that corroborate that a plane hit the building.

If a missile hit the building, they would have reported seeing a missile. But they didn't.

Would they not have placed "witnesses" if they were trying to fool the people?

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]My phones camera takes more frames per second than that.

Were there any eye witnesses who witnessed the eye witnesses witnessing?

racer8dan

Also, that isn't an answer. That barely even qualifies as a question. The simple fact of the matter is that there are countless witness testimonies that corroborate that a plane hit the building.

If a missile hit the building, they would have reported seeing a missile. But they didn't.

If you outright deny all conspiracy theories just because they are conspiracy theories than your an idiot...use your brain and dont blindly accept everything you hear...obviously the gov has some type of agenda and hides things from us. There are tons of things we'll never know of...i thought that was a common fact of life

If you outright deny all conspiracy theories just because they are conspiracy theories than your an idiot...use your brain and dont blindly accept everything you hear...obviously the gov has some type of agenda and hides things from us. There are tons of things we'll never know of...i thought that was a common fact of life

sboyer2

Anyone hear of the Philadelphia Experiment? its a great little conspiracy theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Experiment

[QUOTE="WiiRocks66"]

The JFK Assassination conspiracy. There is more evidence against what we are told than there is for what we are told. And there is a tiny part of the 9/11 conspiracies that I believe, because I know it to be true for a fact(I won't say more or someone could lose their job and disappear), but I think the rest of it is false.

metroidprime55

I actually had a history teacher in middle school who was a huge JFK conspiracy theorist, he had us working on solving the JFK assassination for over a month and then he says "I believe that the Twin Towers were blown up in a controlled domolition because they go straight down." but this can be disproved because the towers stood temporaroly before they collapsed.

consporacy theories are a conspiracy to keep the paranoid people from finding the truth

[QUOTE="sboyer2"]

If you outright deny all conspiracy theories just because they are conspiracy theories than your an idiot...use your brain and dont blindly accept everything you hear...obviously the gov has some type of agenda and hides things from us. There are tons of things we'll never know of...i thought that was a common fact of life

Protoford

Accepting all conspiracy theories is stupid.

Dismissing all of them simply because they question your nice box of reality that you don't want shaken is just as bad.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Tech's better now. I still recall seeing a great deal of news footage from security cameras that's at extremely poor quality.

Also, that isn't an answer. That barely even qualifies as a question. The simple fact of the matter is that there are countless witness testimonies that corroborate that a plane hit the building.

If a missile hit the building, they would have reported seeing a missile. But they didn't.PannicAtack

Why were these video's not shown? With a plane or without? If theres nothing to hide, there's absolutely no reason to hide these.

[QUOTE="Protoford"][QUOTE="sboyer2"]

If you outright deny all conspiracy theories just because they are conspiracy theories than your an idiot...use your brain and dont blindly accept everything you hear...obviously the gov has some type of agenda and hides things from us. There are tons of things we'll never know of...i thought that was a common fact of life

Pixel-Pirate

Accepting all conspiracy theories is stupid.

Dismissing all of them simply because they question your nice box of reality that you don't want shaken is just as bad.