9/11 Conspiracy?
11 September 2004, 11:27 PM
#1
9/11 Conspiracy?
Following on from the television documentary.
1)Did 9/11 have anything to do with 'Bin Laden/Al queda'?
2)How did people with such little light aircraft experince manage to fly the planes into the twin towers with such precision?....Not something that many experienced pilots would be able to do
3)Was one of the flights shot down as claimed by eyewitnesses?
4)Damage to pentagon not consistant with damage which could be caused by a plane.
5)How did the twin towers collapse? Damage was at the top of the building. Looked more like a controlled demolition.
6)Coincidence that twin towers were only insured against terrorist damage a few months before 9/11?
7) Bush reaction about attacks. Very calm, unbothered.
8) What happened to the investigations?
9) Are we to believe that in some the most tightly controlled airspace in the world that a couple of dosey air traffic controllers could allow planes to fly off course left right and centre without fighter jets going up?
etc....
Quite convienent. Bush now controls Iraqi oil etc and an excellent excuse to bully the middle east.
Share your thoughts.
Bob
1)Did 9/11 have anything to do with 'Bin Laden/Al queda'?
2)How did people with such little light aircraft experince manage to fly the planes into the twin towers with such precision?....Not something that many experienced pilots would be able to do
3)Was one of the flights shot down as claimed by eyewitnesses?
4)Damage to pentagon not consistant with damage which could be caused by a plane.
5)How did the twin towers collapse? Damage was at the top of the building. Looked more like a controlled demolition.
6)Coincidence that twin towers were only insured against terrorist damage a few months before 9/11?
7) Bush reaction about attacks. Very calm, unbothered.
8) What happened to the investigations?
9) Are we to believe that in some the most tightly controlled airspace in the world that a couple of dosey air traffic controllers could allow planes to fly off course left right and centre without fighter jets going up?
etc....
Quite convienent. Bush now controls Iraqi oil etc and an excellent excuse to bully the middle east.
Share your thoughts.
Bob
11 September 2004, 11:31 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BOB'5
Following on from the television documentary.
1)Did 9/11 have anything to do with 'Bin Laden/Al queda'?
2)How did people with such little light aircraft experince manage to fly the planes into the twin towers with such precision?....Not something that many experienced pilots would be able to do
3)Was one of the flights shot down as claimed by eyewitnesses?
4)Damage to pentagon not consistant with damage which could be caused by a plane.
5)How did the twin towers collapse? Damage was at the top of the building. Looked more like a controlled demolition.
6)Coincidence that twin towers were only insured against terrorist damage a few months before 9/11?
7) Bush reaction about attacks. Very calm, unbothered.
8) What happened to the investigations?
9) Are we to believe that in some the most tightly controlled airspace in the world that a couple of dosey air traffic controllers could allow planes to fly off course left right and centre without fighter jets going up?
etc....
Quite convienent. Bush now controls Iraqi oil etc and an excellent excuse to bully the middle east.
Share your thoughts.
Bob
1)Did 9/11 have anything to do with 'Bin Laden/Al queda'?
2)How did people with such little light aircraft experince manage to fly the planes into the twin towers with such precision?....Not something that many experienced pilots would be able to do
3)Was one of the flights shot down as claimed by eyewitnesses?
4)Damage to pentagon not consistant with damage which could be caused by a plane.
5)How did the twin towers collapse? Damage was at the top of the building. Looked more like a controlled demolition.
6)Coincidence that twin towers were only insured against terrorist damage a few months before 9/11?
7) Bush reaction about attacks. Very calm, unbothered.
8) What happened to the investigations?
9) Are we to believe that in some the most tightly controlled airspace in the world that a couple of dosey air traffic controllers could allow planes to fly off course left right and centre without fighter jets going up?
etc....
Quite convienent. Bush now controls Iraqi oil etc and an excellent excuse to bully the middle east.
Share your thoughts.
Bob
11 September 2004, 11:35 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: French side of the border at Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 5,703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You forgot about the bit where the insurance policy on the twin towers was upgraded to include terrorist attacks three months before the 9/11 attack.
Oh...and how the first passport found near to the base of ground zero was that of one of the attackers...it was found about 20 minutes after the first plane crashed into the first tower.
Um...and how 8 of the suicide attackers who were reported as being involved (and dead) have since been found alive.
The best...and most consipiratorial of all is the document from the Washington think-tank (which included idiot-Bush's brother Jed amongst it's ranks) which stated that the future defence strategy of the US would benefit enormously from a major security situation along the lines of a new Pearl-Harbour...and funnily enough, the proposed bill passed into US law shortly after 9/11
I'd never call myself cynical
Oh...and how the first passport found near to the base of ground zero was that of one of the attackers...it was found about 20 minutes after the first plane crashed into the first tower.
Um...and how 8 of the suicide attackers who were reported as being involved (and dead) have since been found alive.
The best...and most consipiratorial of all is the document from the Washington think-tank (which included idiot-Bush's brother Jed amongst it's ranks) which stated that the future defence strategy of the US would benefit enormously from a major security situation along the lines of a new Pearl-Harbour...and funnily enough, the proposed bill passed into US law shortly after 9/11
I'd never call myself cynical
11 September 2004, 11:38 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: French side of the border at Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 5,703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by STi-Frenchie
You forgot about the bit where the insurance policy on the twin towers was upgraded to include terrorist attacks three months before the 9/11 attack.
Silly me.
Trending Topics
11 September 2004, 11:46 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BOB'5
1)Did 9/11 have anything to do with 'Bin Laden/Al queda'?
Originally Posted by BOB'5
2)How did people with such little light aircraft experince manage to fly the planes into the twin towers with such precision?....Not something that many experienced pilots would be able to do
Originally Posted by BOB'5
3)Was one of the flights shot down as claimed by eyewitnesses?
Originally Posted by BOB'5
5)How did the twin towers collapse? Damage was at the top of the building. Looked more like a controlled demolition.
Originally Posted by BOB'5
6)Coincidence that twin towers were only insured against terrorist damage a few months before 9/11?
Originally Posted by BOB'5
7) Bush reaction about attacks. Very calm, unbothered.
Originally Posted by BOB'5
8) What happened to the investigations?
Originally Posted by BOB'5
Quite convienent. Bush now controls Iraqi oil etc and an excellent excuse to bully the middle east.
The truth is this: the USA are in such deep shït economically speaking that they NEED to attack others to survive. Their credit-based economy bubble will burst in about 20 years (so I read, book by a French economist who forecast the fall of the Soviet Empire in 1976).
11 September 2004, 11:50 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BOB'5
15) didnt Hilter firebomb his own buildings to reinforce his support and beefing up security?
), but Hitler took Belgium in 2 days and France in 2 weeks. The damn yanks havent been able to take Irak in 3 years!
11 September 2004, 11:52 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BOB'5
16) Pentagon.....was it really a plane that hit it or a missile?
In any case, the US have finally been attacked on the own soil. Of course, they still havent learned anything from it... not that we'd expect them to anyway
11 September 2004, 11:56 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BOB'5
13) Well known that Bush has wanted to control middle east oil reserves
12 September 2004, 12:11 AM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Zed Ess Won Hay Tee
Posts: 21,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i belive theres more to it then was initialy meeting the eye
i belive the pentagon plane wasnt half the size of the proposed one, the whole thing would have been far easier to work out if it wasnt for the pesky goverment bull****
i belive the pentagon plane wasnt half the size of the proposed one, the whole thing would have been far easier to work out if it wasnt for the pesky goverment bull****
12 September 2004, 08:57 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a fact that an airliner being flown at high speed in particular is going to be pretty stable in that it will not change direction very quickly. To aim it to hit a narrow target such as one of the twin towers would not be as easy as you might think if being flown by an inexperienced pilot. If he was a little bit off in his aim it would be hard work to correct it and he would be likely to overcontrol his direction changes. It would have been revealing if we had seen the approach to the towers by each aircraft to see how well the aircraft were being flown. Not too difficult for an experienced pilot but these terrorists were supposed to have very little training.
Les
Les
12 September 2004, 09:15 AM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: South Bucks
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Leslie
It is a fact that an airliner being flown at high speed in particular is going to be pretty stable in that it will not change direction very quickly. To aim it to hit a narrow target such as one of the twin towers would not be as easy as you might think if being flown by an inexperienced pilot. If he was a little bit off in his aim it would be hard work to correct it and he would be likely to overcontrol his direction changes. It would have been revealing if we had seen the approach to the towers by each aircraft to see how well the aircraft were being flown. Not too difficult for an experienced pilot but these terrorists were supposed to have very little training.
Les
Les
Thank god we actually have the footage of these planes hitting the towers as the extra B.S. conspiracies would be too much to take!
12 September 2004, 09:22 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: South Bucks
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BOB'5
5)How did the twin towers collapse? Damage was at the top of the building. Looked more like a controlled demolition.
The inertia of thousands of tons of steel and concrete + diminished structural integrity lower down = the whole tower collapsing like a house of cards.
12 September 2004, 09:57 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: French side of the border at Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 5,703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm..probably just me but any time I've built a house of cards and they've come crashing down, they always fell to the left or right, not straight down into their own footprint as happens when demolition experts take down buildings.
Kevin Groat - surely you are not suggesting Elvis is dead? He's alive and living on the moon last I heard
Kevin Groat - surely you are not suggesting Elvis is dead? He's alive and living on the moon last I heard
12 September 2004, 11:11 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Cardiff. Wales
Posts: 11,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by STi-Frenchie
Hmm..probably just me but any time I've built a house of cards and they've come crashing down, they always fell to the left or right, not straight down into their own footprint as happens when demolition experts take down buildings.
Kevin Groat - surely you are not suggesting Elvis is dead? He's alive and living on the moon last I heard
Kevin Groat - surely you are not suggesting Elvis is dead? He's alive and living on the moon last I heard
Chip
12 September 2004, 11:17 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: WYIOC. The Foxglove, Kirkburton, Huddersfield.
Posts: 5,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FrenchBoy
As you can see from the footage of the attack, the towers take the initial impact quite well. What was a problem was the few thousand gallons of aviation fuel that ignited and burned for over an hour inside (at a temperature of a few thousand degrees). This meant that the steel structure of the building 'melted' and lost its structural integrity, once this has gone the building began to collapse from the top.
The inertia of thousands of tons of steel and concrete + diminished structural integrity lower down = the whole tower collapsing like a house of cards.
The inertia of thousands of tons of steel and concrete + diminished structural integrity lower down = the whole tower collapsing like a house of cards.
12 September 2004, 11:23 AM
#27
Originally Posted by Kevin Groat
And the Americans didn't land on the moon, JFK was shot by the FBI and Elvis is still alive
Alcazar
12 September 2004, 11:26 AM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Claudius
Err... yes, so I heard.
I'm sure it's not so difficult to do.
Yes.
I would guess that the weight of the top floors collapsing onto the rest caused it to give in. We're talking thousands of tons...
Luck?
Who cares how GWBush reacts? That guy isnt even as smart as a dog!
Looks like they dont want to say...
It is, isnt it? Although the excuse is quite used up, it's still used to justify the criminal actions of the US government.
The truth is this: the USA are in such deep shït economically speaking that they NEED to attack others to survive. Their credit-based economy bubble will burst in about 20 years (so I read, book by a French economist who forecast the fall of the Soviet Empire in 1976).
I'm sure it's not so difficult to do.
Yes.
I would guess that the weight of the top floors collapsing onto the rest caused it to give in. We're talking thousands of tons...
Luck?
Who cares how GWBush reacts? That guy isnt even as smart as a dog!
Looks like they dont want to say...
It is, isnt it? Although the excuse is quite used up, it's still used to justify the criminal actions of the US government.
The truth is this: the USA are in such deep shït economically speaking that they NEED to attack others to survive. Their credit-based economy bubble will burst in about 20 years (so I read, book by a French economist who forecast the fall of the Soviet Empire in 1976).
What book was this?
12 September 2004, 11:53 AM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Après l'Empire" by Emmanuel Todd. Not sure if it has been translated into English already (it hadnt last time I checked when someone asked me, about 3 months ago). I'll check again.