New England Patriots 9/11 Conspiracy

Why do you guys ALWAYS fail to remember...they STILL had to score TWO times during the snow bowl.... the Pats D stood up.... Raiders didnt!

Originally posted by CameronFox
Why do you guys ALWAYS fail to remember...they STILL had to score TWO times during the snow bowl.... the Pats D stood up.... Raiders didnt!

I think you must be thinking of another game Mr. Fox. Here's the FACTS:

Raiders screwed.

That's only a field goal. Last I looked that was only 1 possession.

Again the interesting RULES came into play. THIS is the crux of the conspiracy.

Watch the game... the Raiders forced the "fumble" (not there was no call for Roughing tha passer when Brady to a forearm to the face)

The Patriots moved the ball into fieldgoal range where they TIED the game.

The game i believe went into overtime where the Patriots won.

Now...take away the tuck rule call.... what calls AFTER that were given to the pats that allowed them to win the super bowl?

Most responses in here are that the only reason I started this threat is because I am a Pat hater or a Raider fan. I am from Arkansas and not a fan of any team except for Jacksonville Jags and thats because they have matt Jones (Ark QB/WR) on their team. I could care less about the rest of the teams.

Most of the people making the responses are Pat fans defender their team so they are a little bias.

Americans after 911 were very, how do you say, "Patriotic" to the extreme. And they should have been. "Patriotic" has been an overused word by the Bush/Republican administration and thats a fact. I will make it easy for the New Englanders (Patriot-----Patriotic) the two appear to be very similar. It didn't hurt the Administration that the Pats went to the Super Bowl. American flags were everywhere, red, white and blue, etc. which is perfectly fine, I am not trying to UN-"Patriotic". The colors of the Pats are also red, white and blue. So it helped that the "Patriotic" Patriots won the Super Bowl. Keep people "Patriot"ic.

No one has said anything about the claim of the stolen play calling or play book. Miami had New Englands number this year. Patriots said that miami had their play calling. So it can happen.

Originally posted by CameronFox
Watch the game... the Raiders forced the "fumble" (not there was no call for Roughing tha passer when Brady to a forearm to the face)

I did watch the game. I've been an NFL fan for over 25 years.

The Patriots moved the ball into fieldgoal range where they TIED the game.

The game i believe went into overtime where the Patriots won.

You would KNOW this, not believe it if you had watched the game.

Now...take away the tuck rule call.... what calls AFTER that were given to the pats that allowed them to win the super bowl?

Take away the Tuck rule?

Invoking the "tuck rule", where a ball is ruled an incomplete pass after the quarterback starts any forward motion, the referee overturned the decision after reviewing the instant replay, calling the drop an incomplete pass rather than a fumble.

Sure! Take that away and the Pats lose.

That's my point, I WATCHED the game, love the Pat's but it was bogus.

Oh, another note:

Lost in the controversy was a stirring comeback by the Patriots, who trailed 13-3 midway through the 4th Quarter....

"Controversy", "conspiracy", seem synonomus to me.

Edit to add: Just fess up and see the NFL as a promoter of the Forces. It's not a bad thing, only if it's hidden.

[edit on 2-1-2007 by intrepid]

Originally posted by intrepid
peeps, I'm a Niners fan and I see Brady as the second coming of Montana and Bellicheck as Walsh reincaranate

I knew Canadians were smart people.

I love this team but you can't poo-poo away those calls that are worded so that a challenge makes it unable to win one(indisputable evidence). Some can't even be challenged. WHY?

Are you talking about the nature of instant replay? I do think that pass interference should be reviewable, but I'll need more explanation. It's pretty clear to me. The ref on the field has priority over the machine. If the machine (review) can't say for sure, then the ref's call stands. I think it's inconcievably hard to pull off any subterfuge under the slo-mo hdtv cameras and all that. Really, I have a lot of respect for the refs.

I don't see the Pats getting more favorable calls than anyone else. You know football comes down to a whole lot more than some little call a ref might make. It's really just people whining about a game either team could have won. Do Raiders fans think they would have beaten Faulk and the Rams that year?

Anyway, I am open to persuasion. Here is my .02 on the "Snow Bowl":

en.wikipedia.org...

NFL Rule 3, Section 21, Article 2, Note 2: "When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble."

en.wikipedia.org...

Coleman made headlines on January 19, 2002, for a call he made during what has been deemed by many as the "Snow Bowl" because of the enormous amounts of snow that had fallen during and prior to the game at Foxboro Stadium between the New England Patriots and the Oakland Raiders. With 1:47 left in regulation, Oakland cornerback Charles Woodson, knocked the ball from New England's quarterback Tom Brady causing a fumble that was recovered by Oakland linebacker Greg Biekert. For a moment it looked like the end of the Patriots season, however, Coleman reviewed the play and overturned the fumble call, giving the Patriots the opportunity to win the game. The rule applied in the decision was the tuck rule.

Coleman later said of the play, "It was in the last two minutes of the game, and the (instant) replay guy, buzzed me and said the play needed to be reviewed. After I went over to the monitor and looked at the play, it was obvious to me that it was a forward pass. So I changed the ruling from a fumble to an incomplete pass and, as the saying goes, 'the rest is history'."

The point is this (and sorry if people didn't know the rulebook): The QB can fumble ONLY when his arm is not moving to pass or recover from a pass (tucking the ball). This allows the QB to pump-fake the ball. If it's slippery, and his backward motion causes the ball to slip as he pump-fakes, it has never, ever been a fumble. Only when he has established control of the ball, from the passing motion, can he then perhaps fumble. The passing motion includes the return motion of the ball to the body, and loss of the ball on the return-arc is not a fumble.

Go Patriots.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
The point is this (and sorry if people didn't know the rulebook): The QB can fumble ONLY when his arm is not moving to pass or recover from a pass (tucking the ball). This allows the QB to pump-fake the ball. If it's slippery, and his backward motion causes the ball to slip as he pump-fakes, it has never, ever been a fumble. Only when he has established control of the ball, from the passing motion, can he then perhaps fumble. The passing motion includes the return motion of the ball to the body, and loss of the ball on the return-arc is not a fumble.

Go Patriots.

I DO know the rule book. Like I said, I've been a fan for more than 25 years, still the best league in the world imo. Only have to look at the diving in the World Cup to see that. The problem with this is the interpretaion of the rules by the officials. It WAS a fumble. Pump fake, yup, reloaded, fumbled. Everyone cognizant of the rules and not a fan of the Pat's knew it. As I said, I love Brady, he's bound for Canton but he DID fumble that ball.

The question is WHY did the officials allow it? That's the meat of this thread.

My thoughts are that this is the reason:




There be the Red, White and Blue.

I think this may be one of the most absurd conspiracies I've read on here yet. In order for this conspiracy to work, all 55 members of the New England Patriots (actually, even more, since it wasn't all the same players each of their Superbowl-winning years), their coaching staff, members of the government who would have orchestrated this idea, the countless people it would hypothetically take to "hack" into the play-calling system, and MANY MORE... would all have to be involved and would all have to have kept their mouths shut in the years since!

Furthermore, even if they could intercept the play-calling they would still have to decipher the code names for the plays. It's not like the coach gets on and says "throw to #81 on a 10-step button hook." Rather, he'll say something completely meaningless to anyone that doesn't have the playbook like "Zebra right 23."

Additionally, Motorolla has invested MILLIONS of dollars into designing, developing and maintaining the wireless communication systems used by the NFL. I venture to say that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for even the government to intercept them. And if they did I'm sure that Motorolla would quickly realize it- almost as quickly as the coach and players on the opposing team who notice how odd it is that the Patriots almost seem to "know" what play they're going to run next!

And before you get into something like "referees being bribed", let me warn you to not even waste your time! Millions of people are watching these games, and the close-up replays during them. If a ref makes a bad call then you'll know it. And the coach on the bad end of that call will complain to the NFL. And the more bad calls you make, the less important games you are given to ref, and if it continues then you're finished with the NFL. Unless, of course, the entire NFL organization is also in on your conspiracy? LOL.

I must say that I was expecting to see a "the World Series was rigged" thread before this one. Wasn't it right after 9/11 that we saw "THE SUBWAY SERIES" between the NEW YORK Mets and the NEW YORK Yankees??? That seems way more suspicious to me than the Patriots!

In closing, it's these kinds of posts that have me torn! Do I even waste my time responding and rebuffing? And if so, should I really be doing something that contributes to the original authors ATS points, when he's the type to post this kind of insane garbage??? After all, he's probably just posting this stuff to get a hundred people yelling at him and increase his point total anyway! Seems like I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't!

Originally posted by CameronFox
...and football is notorious for not having the best team win!

Ha! Proof right there that the Saints are going to win!

Sorry, I couldn't resist, no use arguing with me, because I know hardly anything about football.

Save your typing for telling me I was right after the SuperBowl is won by us!

The Raiders got hosed that year, but I would not call it a massive government conspiracy related to 9-11. For one thing the link between the Patriots franchise and pro-government or pro-American sentiments is tenuous at best. People do not identify the Patriots with those sentiments. If the government really wanted to fix the NFL to promote those sentiments, they would have the Cowboys or Packers win as these teams and their images represent middle-American values more than a team from uber-liberal Boston.

I'll admit to not reading the whole thread yet, but I feel compelled to quickly come out with this.

If this was a plot to instill a sense of patriotism in Americans, why did they ever allow the Arizona Diamondbacks to win the 2001 World Series? You do remember that the New York Yankees lost in the World Series only a few weeks after September 11th?

Seems like if there was ever a time to assist a team into a championship, for a noble cause, the '01 World Series would of been the perfect time. The Super Bowl wasn't played for another four months, Why pass on this opportunity?

A little too much Curt Schilling & Big Unit if you ask me.

In order for this conspiracy to work, all 55 members of the New England Patriots (actually, even more, since it wasn't all the same players each of their Superbowl-winning years), their coaching staff, members of the government who would have orchestrated this idea, the countless people it would hypothetically take to "hack" into the play-calling system, and MANY MORE... would all have to be involved and would all have to have kept their mouths shut in the years since!

Wrong.

Only the ref with the headphones needed to overturn one call.

Gruden was in on it, as well, imo. That's why he went to the Buc's the next year for big money, and ended up playing the Raiders in SB 37, to keep his mouth shut.

Even if the ref was in on the fix, a whole bunch of things needed to happen during the course of the game and the season for the outcome of the season to hinge on one call.

What your talking about here is risking a billion dollar industry on some mythical attempt to instill something into an American nation. New England was not attacked on 9/11, America was attacked. What difference would it make if the Pats or the Raiders won the Bowl? Yes, geography tells us that the Pats are located closer to New York City, but does that equate to more American?

If something were to ever rise that this was fixed, the league would crumble. In today's media, it could never survive. The infamous Black Sox scandal of 1919 when Shoeloess Joe Jackson and the Chicago White Sox threw the World Series, baseball was lucky to survive that one. But the media of yesterday is nothing compared to today. They would have a field day with this sort of thing.

So, would the juice be worth the squeeze? Would the end, truly be worth the risk you would run?

Not even close. It is completely unfathomable to ever think the league would ever risk everything it is based on. Our professional sports are sacred, when the day comes that we see it is nothing more than a Vince McMahon story line running the show, well it would be another Black Tuesday in America.

Refs are not perfect, they make mistakes as do any player. Basing a conspiracy on a few marginal calls is a stretch.

Dallas Stars beat the Buffalo Sabres in the 1999 Stanley Cup Finals on a blatant rule violation. Brett Hull's sake was clearly in the crease when he put the puck in the net, yet they failed to make the call. Conspiracy? Nope, they blew the call. Thats the long and the short of it.

How about this one, it is a Canadian conspiracy with the NHL. The NHL has its best interest in sending the Cup to US Markets to push the game. Let's face it, cities like Calgary and Edmonton have a strong fan base as it is. Tampa Bay and Carolina would definitely benefit more from a cup victory. So I bring you to Game 6, Stanley Cup Finals, Calgary, Alberta. Yes, we are in overtime. The Flames Scored! Game Over, Stanley Cup Winnners!

Wait, No. That's not how it happened.

The Flames had scored in overtime, but the refs failed to make the call. Not to mention the questionable penalties that the Flames & Oilers the following year, were dung with night after night. The reffing was horrendous in these two series, and both times the Canadian teams were taking the brunt of it. These ref's are the best of the best, yet they continued to make marginal calls night after night.

Are these conspiracies? Or just blunders by the refs?

Blunders if you ask me. But the debate is always worth while.

Its not that impossible to keep play stealing hidden. Not that many people have to know about it. Really only two. The person who steals the calls and the Defense Cor. who relays the message out to the team.
Defense wins games. That is a fact. Any coach will tell you that, except for maybe the 2000 Rams who were the exception to the rule.

News Break!!!!!
Again, NE Patriots, this year, accused the Miami Dolphins of stealing the play calls. It was all over espn for about 2 days. Miami denied it of course, but the Dophins did win over The New England Patriots 21-0. A shut-out which is unheard of these days for the Pats. When was the last Pat shut-out. Defense wins games!!!!
The first game played between NE Pats and Dolphins this year, the Pats won 20-10. The second game, Pats lose in a shut-out.

Stolen play book or stolen play calls, its not out of the realm of possibility. Just the Defensive coachs or coach have to be in on it.

If the fix was in "9/11 style" on the 2002 Superbowl then it is time that we bring in the Osama Bin Laden of this conspiracy:

Mike Martz

This evil mastermind is the one and only reason that the New England Patriots were victorious in Superbowl XXXVI.

You have a Hall of Fame and league MVP RB in the backfield averaging 4.5 a carry and you only hand him the ball 17 times during the course of the game? Are you joking?

The only hand-off Martz called that day was when he handed the title to the Pats, a good team that rode the mistakes of others to glory...which, to be fair, is what good teams do.


As for the "amazing" turnaround the Pats made, going from 5-11 to Superbowl champs...you'll have to go back to the drawing board on that one as well.

The year prior to the Pats AMAZING turnaround, the Superbowl was won by an overachieving Ravens team that had barely managed a .500 record the year before. And the year before that was the Rams championship year which came on the heels of a 4-12 season.

I mean, I love a good conspiracy, but...come on.






[edit on 3-1-2007 by Essedarius]

I have actually been saying this for years now, what with the "Patriots" wins being right around the same time as 9-11, the begining of the war in Iraq among a couple things.

I don't follow football whatsoever so I really could care less who wins or how plays may have been "thrown". But what if one offered a team (or coach) an aweful lot of money to make sure they allowed the opposing team to make "key plays" that would cause that team to win? Is it possible they would say "sure, why not?" Of course it's possible, especially if the payout is say more than what the winning team (or coach) was making.

Also I noticed last year when the Steelers won wasn't one of their star players playing in front of his home town AND (I'm not sure on this one) he was retiring or having a birthday or had a relative die just prior to the game. I know that one sounds just as far fetched but at the time it struck me as odd.

Anyway I believe that there will be more "evidence" (for me that is) to this conspiracy if you see the Saints take the bowl this year. You know, one year after Katrina and New Orleans has "come back with a veangence". I said they'd take the bowl at the beginning of the season and now it looks like it is quite possible.

And on a final note in regards to people saying "why didn't 'they' do this conspiracy with the Yankees at the World Series? I would have to say that it is because a.) I think "they" were trying to sell America on "Patriotism" at the time and b.) because the Super Bowl has a much broader audience than the World Series. I mean, c'mon, you don't exactly hear people talking about what commercials were played during the World Series do you?

Oh well those are just my thoughts.

[edit on 4-1-2007 by MetalSphere]

Originally posted by MetalSphere
Also I noticed last year when the Steelers won wasn't one of their star players playing in front of his home town AND (I'm not sure on this one) he was retiring or having a birthday or had a relative die just prior to the game. I know that one sounds just as far fetched but at the time it struck me as odd.

You would be referring to Jerome Bettis, and yes he was from Detroit, where the Superbowl was held. Yes he was retiring, as he had announced much earlier that this would be his final season. Not familiar with a death shortly before the big game, but I may be wrong. Far fetched would not begin to explain this one, as there is absolutely nothing to substantiate any sort of conspiracy.

The Steelers squeaked into the playoffs by the skin of their heels, but were by far the best team all through out the playoffs. An early injury to Carson Palmer certainly helped and the magic of Mike Vanderjact, but the boys won it on their own.

Originally posted by MetalSphere
And on a final note in regards to people saying "why didn't 'they' do this conspiracy with the Yankees at the World Series? I would have to say that it is because a.) I think "they" were trying to sell America on "Patriotism" at the time and b.) because the Super Bowl has a much broader audience than the World Series. I mean, c'mon, you don't exactly hear people talking about what commercials were played during the World Series do you?

I fail to see the logic here though. Look at the facts. We are saying that they tried to sell patriotism to the public. New York City was the victim of a horrendous terrorist act. The New York, not New England, Yankees were in the World Series only a few weeks after the attack. Not months, not years, a few weeks.

Is football considered America's favorite pass time? No. Baseball is America's game, and it is America's favorite pass time. Again I say, if there was ever a time to sell patriotism, it would be New York and it's city, rising above the turmoil and adversity to capture a world championship.

The Yankee's and the Boston Red Sox are the biggest rivalry in all of spots. New York has the Giants and the Jets for the NFL. Who does Boston have? New England!

New York did not even have a team in the Superbowl. They did have a team in the World Series.

Originally posted by chissler

Originally posted by MetalSphere
Also I noticed last year when the Steelers won wasn't one of their star players playing in front of his home town AND (I'm not sure on this one) he was retiring or having a birthday or had a relative die just prior to the game. I know that one sounds just as far fetched but at the time it struck me as odd.

You would be referring to Jerome Bettis, and yes he was from Detroit, where the Superbowl was held. Yes he was retiring, as he had announced much earlier that this would be his final season. Not familiar with a death shortly before the big game, but I may be wrong. Far fetched would not begin to explain this one, as there is absolutely nothing to substantiate any sort of conspiracy.

The Steelers squeaked into the playoffs by the skin of their heels, but were by far the best team all through out the playoffs. An early injury to Carson Palmer certainly helped and the magic of Mike Vanderjact, but the boys won it on their own.

Originally posted by MetalSphere
And on a final note in regards to people saying "why didn't 'they' do this conspiracy with the Yankees at the World Series? I would have to say that it is because a.) I think "they" were trying to sell America on "Patriotism" at the time and b.) because the Super Bowl has a much broader audience than the World Series. I mean, c'mon, you don't exactly hear people talking about what commercials were played during the World Series do you?

I fail to see the logic here though. Look at the facts. We are saying that they tried to sell patriotism to the public. New York City was the victim of a horrendous terrorist act. The New York, not New England, Yankees were in the World Series only a few weeks after the attack. Not months, not years, a few weeks.

Is football considered America's favorite pass time? No. Baseball is America's game, and it is America's favorite pass time. Again I say, if there was ever a time to sell patriotism, it would be New York and it's city, rising above the turmoil and adversity to capture a world championship.

The Yankee's and the Boston Red Sox are the biggest rivalry in all of spots. New York has the Giants and the Jets for the NFL. Who does Boston have? New England!

New York did not even have a team in the Superbowl. They did have a team in the World Series.

Yeah I wasn't sure if it was retirement, or a death in the family or what exactly it was. Like I said I don't follow football. I just thought it was very convenient for the hometown boy to win the Super Bowl in the last game of his career. It was just an idea I had after I came up with the 9-11 / Patriots / Iraq thing (not that I came up with that idea ORIGINALLY but in my little world the thought has been their for years)

I realize that baseball is "america's favorite pass time" but I think football is more popular in the U.S. overall and therefore a larger pedestal, so to speak, to get the "message" across that is trying to be conveyed (assuming there is a message). I follow baseball as much as football but couldn't tell you who was in the World Series last year.

New York wasn't attacked America was attacked. I don't mean that in the litteral sense but that is the ideology (is that even a word?) most American's had after 9-11. That is the logic I was trying to convey.
Also I think it would take a little longer than a few weeks to pull off a conspiracy like the one mentioned. Hence another reason why it wouldn't be pulled off at that particular game.

Anyway I'm not really out to convince anyone, I just found a thread that reflected a thought that I have had for a while and felt the need to contribute, but let me leave you with this thought: It wasn't until the 80s that people started to discover that Pro Wrestling was fixed/scripted.

Anyway, Thanks

[edit on 4-1-2007 by MetalSphere]

Originally posted by MetalSphere
New York wasn't attacked America was attacked.

So glad you said that. As I've said in a previous post, America was attacked not New York. Which is why I have said, it would make no difference if the Patriots or the Raiders won the Super Bowl. Both teams were American, neither team was from New York.

Originally posted by MetalSphere
Also I think it would take a little longer than a few weeks to pull off a conspiracy like the one mentioned. Hence another reason why it wouldn't be pulled off at that particular game.

The first bit of logic to go against my notion. I thank you kindly for it.