9/11 conspiracies are nonsense

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
grow up ppl. try to realize what is happening around us. 9/11 or july 7th, these are all excuses for the jews to infuriate christians against muslims, and to enslave the world.

face it, the muslims are still the only people who can awaken from thier slumber any day and turn the tables around for these evil rulers ruling the world today. all god fearing humans are a threat to these evil people trying to rule the world by instilling thier fear into our hearts. cuz those who fear god.....dont fear nothing else.




posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semiazas

Originally posted by reallynobody
NO. That is something that I AM very certain of. A passenger airliner can make far sharper turns than it usually would, but only so not to stress both the plane and passengers. In case of an emergency or insance terrorist suicide attack, the plane can go very steep in no time, and the faster the plane the faster it can turn.
And in a nosedive it can go FAST, which is probably why eyewitnesses are having trouble describing the plane.

Only trouble is that its route to impact wasnt a steep nosedive. If you see the alleged video of the crash you can see it coming in almost parallel to the ground which is the exact opposite of a nosedive.


We are talking about different planes. You mean the plane that hit the pentagon.
I was talking about the one that crashed on route to the white house.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saladin
grow up ppl. try to realize what is happening around us. 9/11 or july 7th, these are all excuses for the jews to infuriate christians against muslims, and to enslave the world.

face it, the muslims are still the only people who can awaken from thier slumber any day and turn the tables around for these evil rulers ruling the world today. all god fearing humans are a threat to these evil people trying to rule the world by instilling thier fear into our hearts. cuz those who fear god.....dont fear nothing else.



MIGHTY MUSLIMS PLZ SAVE MY SOUL



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody

Originally posted by Semiazas

Originally posted by reallynobody
NO. That is something that I AM very certain of. A passenger airliner can make far sharper turns than it usually would, but only so not to stress both the plane and passengers. In case of an emergency or insance terrorist suicide attack, the plane can go very steep in no time, and the faster the plane the faster it can turn.
And in a nosedive it can go FAST, which is probably why eyewitnesses are having trouble describing the plane.

Only trouble is that its route to impact wasnt a steep nosedive. If you see the alleged video of the crash you can see it coming in almost parallel to the ground which is the exact opposite of a nosedive.


We are talking about different planes. You mean the plane that hit the pentagon.
I was talking about the one that crashed on route to the white house.
Sorry, I didn't realize you abandoned the argument with me when you met something you couldn't have an easy to believe answer to.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semiazas

Originally posted by reallynobody

Originally posted by Semiazas

Originally posted by reallynobody
NO. That is something that I AM very certain of. A passenger airliner can make far sharper turns than it usually would, but only so not to stress both the plane and passengers. In case of an emergency or insance terrorist suicide attack, the plane can go very steep in no time, and the faster the plane the faster it can turn.
And in a nosedive it can go FAST, which is probably why eyewitnesses are having trouble describing the plane.

Only trouble is that its route to impact wasnt a steep nosedive. If you see the alleged video of the crash you can see it coming in almost parallel to the ground which is the exact opposite of a nosedive.


We are talking about different planes. You mean the plane that hit the pentagon.
I was talking about the one that crashed on route to the white house.
Sorry, I didn't realize you abandoned the argument with me when you met something you couldn't have an easy to believe answer to.



Im having a conversation with a dozen people here. What you want? You should specify what you are talking about im not keeping track who is talking about what plane anymore.

The plane that hit the pentagon was a different matter. I thought some english scientists run a simulation. Apparently it got scraped up into nothingness when it got pressed into the building. It is difficult to judge it without any presedence, but I hurt my skin plenty of times when I scraped them against rock real fast. And broken concrete is much rougher than most rock, and the plane was going really fast. It definately would not occur with any normal building, but this was supposed to be some sort of armored structure, correct? It would have resisted being pulled apart and instead ripped the plane apart. Sort of what happens to a grenade when it hits reactive tank armor? It is a shame security cameras dont have faster framerate.


[edit on 28-6-2006 by reallynobody]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semiazas

Originally posted by zappafan1
Well, since everyone here at least appears to be open to information, check out the following:
[link]http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/[/link]

..... not exactly a bastion of Conservatism.
Bad link, only gives about three paragraphs then you must view sponsors to read it in its complete form.


REPLY: I just went to all three links and they opened Immediately. AH HA.... I went through the Salon sponsors ad, it took 8 seconds; no big deal. And worth the read.



A cruise missile could be easily disguised as a plane with a few stripes and logo.


REPLY: Ummmm, no cruise missile is as large as a 747, no matter WHAT stripes you use. And, a cruise missile would have done MORE damage, and of a different characteristics.



"Also, ATC's ( Air Traffic Controllers ) lost track of Flight 93 because the hijackers supposedly turned off the tracking beacon. So it really would not be hard to turn off the tracking beacon, get rid of the plane ( which could be done many ways..shot down over ocean, landed and taken in hangar - repainted )..."


REPLY: Beacons, yes; radar, no.


O and for your camera comment, a local gas station had a camera pointing at the building along with a hotel....these cameras' tapes were taken by federal agents minutes after the crash.


Check out all the similar descriptions of the Pentagon crash; the names link to a seperate page giving their full account; the top two give a video, and a sound clip, respectively.
[link] www.whatreallyhappened.com... [/link]

Also:
[link] www.purdue.edu... [/link]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I have not posted here ever since the Pentagon """MISTAKENLY""" called my unlisted cell phone number two days after I submitted a story to atsnn about them misreporting desertion rates.

All I can say, you know what,,,, what is there to say?

Except - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. - Oh yea I'm also on the floor rolling around.

MEMBERS - Beware the mole and snipe hunters!!!




posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody
Excuses for any lousy grammar but I ain't american. Any way, my dislike for Bush doesn't make me blind for fact. And that is that there isn't a single scrap of evidence to suggest that those towers collapsed by anything else then planes & fire, or that there wasn anything else 'faked' or 'rigged' for that matter.

Let's examine the so called evidence I have read so far:


----------------------------------------------------
Claim 1) Osama was not behind it because he wears a ring in one of the videos. Islamics aren't SUPPOSED to wear jewellery so it couldnt have been Bin Laden so it must have been American agents in disguise.

Counterclaim) Islamics aren't allowed to wear jewellery, but they aren't allowed to have their picture taken or put on film either. Osama doesn't have a problem with that does he?! There have been terrorist attacks on friday too, even though friday is an islamic restday. Guess Islamic terrorists don't care about religious rules afterall when it suits them.
THE ENTIRE PROBLEM IS THAT OSAMA IS LEFT HANDED- THE ACTOR IS RIGHT HANDED.

Claim 2) A Koran that was found in the trunk of a car belonging to one of the hijackers was planted by government agents. Why wouldn't the terrorist take it with him on the plane?

Counterclaim) It is against the Islamic religion to destroy a Koran. This is actually quite an important rule too. (even worse than to carry rings) Guess the terrorists where smart enough to understand that a Koran might get damaged by taking it onbard a suicide-run.

THIS IS A NON- ISSUE. I HAVE BIBLES LAYING AROUND DIFFERENT HOUSES


Claim 3) There are eye-witnesses that claim that there where other planes in the vacinity when a plane 'supposedly' crashed into the pentagon. Obviously these must be part of the conspiracy, for instance firing a missile into that building.

Counterclaim) The eye-witnesses that claim to see other planes don't quite agree with eachother what kind of planes these would have been, or even HOW MANY other planes there where. Besides, there are planes in the sky all the time, so what?

TWO WORDS- FIVE FRAMES- OUT OF ALL THE SURVEILLANCE AROUND THAT VIPER'S DEN

And with soooo many aquite eyewitnesses around you can't fire a rocket at the pentagon. They tend to make for a lot of noise, smoke and sight, even before they detonate. How can people spot every plane in the sky but miss a huge air-to-ground missile screeching through the air?

IT'S CALLED DIVERSIONARY TACTICTS

Further more, there are also eye-witnesses that claim that they clearly saw a giant passenger airliner move close over the ground heading towards the Pentagon.


Claim 4) There was thermite found in the remains of the WTC rubble! This means that it was all a set-up.

Counterclaim) Thermite is a big word. Thermite is a mixture of powdered aluminium and iron oxide (rust). So what did people find that got all the tin-hatties excited? Microscopic bits of aluminium and rusty iron.

Considering that two mostly aluminium planes just crashed into two steel and iron filled towers: is it TRULY surprising?

I guess researchers published findings on analysis of the rubble, and some conspiracy theorists took the wrong conclusions.

I'M NOT A SCIENTIST- I CONCEDE ON THIS POINT


Claim 5) No building ever collapsed because of a fire!

Counterclaim) Did those buildings had planes fly into them?
(On a side not I doubt that no building ever collapsed after a fire, some buildings rely heavily on wood reinforcements, so at most no STONE building ever collapsed because of fire. Although I doubt that as well.)


Claim 6) The two towers where engineered to withstand impacts of planes. This proves that planes could not have brought it down!

Counterclaim) Was it tested? Where there planes flown against the towers which then bounced back or something?

A part of a French airport terminal collapsed once because of lousy architecture.
If it is so difficult designing something based on a known concept, I can imagine
how difficult it must be to design something that you can't even test.

THIS, I AGREE, PROVES NOTHING. BUT YOU ARE BRINGING UP THE FLIMSIEST EVIDENCE.


[edit on 28-6-2006 by reallynobody]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mog_of_Eligius
I have not posted here ever since the Pentagon """MISTAKENLY""" called my unlisted cell phone number two days after I submitted a story to atsnn about them misreporting desertion rates.

All I can say, you know what,,,, what is there to say?

Except - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. - Oh yea I'm also on the floor rolling around.

MEMBERS - Beware the mole and snipe hunters!!!




I see the quality of the conversation is going downhill.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
Ummmm, no cruise missile is as large as a 747, no matter WHAT stripes you use. And, a cruise missile would have done MORE damage, and of a different characteristics.


Im with you on most items as I already posted a reply to those points. But in all honousty: you can equip a cruisemissile with a smaller load. Let's keep the facts straight!



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   

THE ENTIRE PROBLEM IS THAT OSAMA IS LEFT HANDED- THE ACTOR IS RIGHT HANDED.


For real? That is interesting. I will look into it later. But what did he do with his right hand, only pick up something or do something difficult like write with it?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reallynobody:

please see my thread, posted almost one year ago, re: 9-11.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Originally posted by Mog_of_Eligius

I have not posted here ever since the Pentagon """MISTAKENLY""" called my unlisted cell phone number two days after I submitted a story to atsnn about them misreporting desertion rates.


REPLY: I believe I would have snapped a picture of the incoming call number logged on your phone; You know... proof.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody


THE ENTIRE PROBLEM IS THAT OSAMA IS LEFT HANDED- THE ACTOR IS RIGHT HANDED.


For real? That is interesting. I will look into it later. But what did he do with his right hand, only pick up something or do something difficult like write with it?




you're serious. you're actually conversing with ATS, 9-11, conspiracy posters, and you haven't seen the "Bin-Laden confesssion tape"??? Do some research please.

Or are you yanking my chain?

Please tell me you're joking.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajesticJax

Originally posted by reallynobody


THE ENTIRE PROBLEM IS THAT OSAMA IS LEFT HANDED- THE ACTOR IS RIGHT HANDED.


For real? That is interesting. I will look into it later. But what did he do with his right hand, only pick up something or do something difficult like write with it?




you're serious. you're actually conversing with ATS, 9-11, conspiracy posters, and you haven't seen the "Bin-Laden confesssion tape"??? Do some research please.

Or are you yanking my chain?

Please tell me you're joking.


I have seen those movies yeah, but that was months ago. I did not know or forgot that Bin Laden was left-handed. So, do I have to go watch that horrible person again or can you cut the suspense and the insults and say what he did? Did he scratch his but with the wrong hand?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody

Originally posted by zappafan1
Ummmm, no cruise missile is as large as a 747, no matter WHAT stripes you use. And, a cruise missile would have done MORE damage, and of a different characteristics.


Im with you on most items as I already posted a reply to those points. But in all honousty: you can equip a cruisemissile with a smaller load. Let's keep the facts straight!


REPLY: Thanks, Dude. However, considering if the intent was to cause as much death and destruction as possible (consistent with everything else that happened that day), why reduce/change the load. This also does not make a cruise missile as large as a 747.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
Originally posted by Mog_of_Eligius

I have not posted here ever since the Pentagon """MISTAKENLY""" called my unlisted cell phone number two days after I submitted a story to atsnn about them misreporting desertion rates.


REPLY: I believe I would have snapped a picture of the incoming call number logged on your phone; You know... proof.


Did the guy in the other side identify themselves with "the pentagon"?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   
This doesnt make sense...
I have been reading all the links posted and this is what your saying the "truth" is?


The USA knew there was going to be an attack by terrorists so they ignored it because it helped a lot of their causes

OR

The USA planted bombs and remote controlled some planes into the building.

OR

a combination of both??

because all the links and "coincidences" seem to almost contradict each other. There are links in this thread that point to both of these as being the issue. Seriously folks... what the hell?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1

Originally posted by reallynobody

Originally posted by zappafan1
Ummmm, no cruise missile is as large as a 747, no matter WHAT stripes you use. And, a cruise missile would have done MORE damage, and of a different characteristics.


Im with you on most items as I already posted a reply to those points. But in all honousty: you can equip a cruisemissile with a smaller load. Let's keep the facts straight!


REPLY: Thanks, Dude. However, considering if the intent was to cause as much death and destruction as possible (consistent with everything else that happened that day), why reduce/change the load. This also does not make a cruise missile as large as a 747.


No denying that.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
didn't mean to offend- he wrote a letter with his right hand as well as pointed, had a gold ring, and was substantially heavier, (body-weight), than ANY other Bin-Laden vidieo.





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join