TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- conspiracy - what do you think
Pages (8): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 »

quote:

Originally posted by solgrabber diginut can you use your scientific method to explain how a boeing 757 fit into that small hole in the pentagon? it was shown only a few times on national air, i wonder why?

And how come with all the dozens of security cameras around the pentagon.. the government didnt show any footage to the public?

If they were telling the truth and have nothing to hide, then they could easily show us some video evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by solgrabber yes that was a good documetary, i have tons of them archived which show tons of evidence that there was a lot more then what the government and media sold to the public. diginut can you use your scientific method to explain how a boeing 757 fit into that small hole in the pentagon? it was shown only a few times on national air, i wonder why?

Iam not sure if it was in this documantry or another one,were it showd the FBI collected all the tapes from all the security cameras that were around the Pentagon.like one hour after the attack all the tapes were collected.I wonder why?

did you all know that the company that the US sold the scrap metal to was the same company they sold the scrap metal to from the oklahoma bombing. i wonder why?

to bad dignut cannot use the scientific method to test the scraps to see what really brought down those towers.

Digi knows everythning, never underestimate his powers

i'm sorry but u guys that believe this shit make me realize how utterly bored and stupid people are. you are telling us how we are stupid for believing what we are told by the government and news sources from all over the world. if we are so brainwashed what exactly would u be called? u are listening to some random people on the internet that are making up stories with no real evidence and sometimes hilariously edited photos. you talk to any architect or scientist and they will tell you that indeed it was not the planes that brought down the towers. it was the fire afterwards that melted the steel supporting the towers. that was the real cause of the collapse. Why did the government sell the scrap to the same company as the oklahoma city bombing? maybe because they have a contract with them to bring them extra scrap metal? was oklahoma city a conspiracy also? oh yes its purpose was to blow up a bunch of kids and then blame it on two white guys. yup that sounds like a good idea for the government. they really gained from that one... and yes they knew about pearl harbour yet left so many of their ships to be destroyed. Letting the japanese attack but moving the ships to safety would also have worked in falsifying a "surprise attack". Honestly you guys tell us to use some common sense, how about you use some yourself. people in north america are way too spoiled and end up wasting their time on shit like this instead of actually using their brains for something worthwhile. *fin*

p.s. get a life.

Heres an website about Pearl Harbor.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm

Maybe its all bullshit, maybe its not.

Just keep an open mind.

Also, what exactly are us "crazy fucking nutjobs" trying to do?
You think we are just spearding a bunch of bullshit conspiracy to people?

Well, maybe we are.

But remember, the first people who said the earth was "round" where called "crazy fucking nutjobs". Because school, education, science, & religion didnt agree with them. Many of them where put into jail, or their lives where threatened so they would STFU.

They also had people who accused them of being crazy and told them they are retards... just like you are telling us.

But hey, maybe you are right. Its your opinion. And I dont want to change it. I just want to speard my information around & not be criticized for it by being called "crazy" just because you dont agree with it.

Thank you. Have a nice day.

quote:

Originally posted by solgrabber diginut can you use your scientific method to explain how a boeing 757 fit into that small hole in the pentagon? it was shown only a few times on national air, i wonder why?

Since Aaron doesn't seem to be online, I'll field your questions:

quote:

When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings. Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen." The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

Happy now?

quote:

Originally posted by cyper And how come with all the dozens of security cameras around the pentagon.. the government didnt show any footage to the public?

Because THEY were doing the investigation, not the public. Releasing the tapes to the public would just give the conspiracy nuts more "proof" to work with to spin their tales. Again, lack of proof does NOT prove the otherwise. But since you're prolly still not satisified by that, here's a pic the 'documentary' (an amateur flash at best) leaves out:

Furthermore:

quote:

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

have you ever heard of Okham's Razor?

the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

quote:

Originally posted by cyper But remember, the first people who said the earth was "round" where called "crazy fucking nutjobs". Because school, education, science, & religion didnt agree with them. Many of them where put into jail, or their lives where threatened so they would STFU.

P.S.:

quote:

Flat Wrong November 1, 1997 by Mark Hartwig Do you remember the stories you heard about Columbus proving that the earth is round? About how this courageous man sailed to America and proved that the superstitious theologians and scholars of his day were wrong? It never happened. Although Columbus did make his famous voyage, no educated person of his time--including theologians--ever believed that the earth is flat. And no one ever challenged Columbus for believing it is round. Experts on Medieval thought and history have known this for decades, if not longer. But the general public, and even some historians, are still in the dark. In Inventing the Flat Earth, historian Jeffrey Russell, of the University of California at Santa Barbara, argues compellingly that almost no educated person in the western world has believed in a flat earth since the third century B.C. Contrary to the myth that almost all Christians believed in a flat earth until Columbus�s voyage, Russell reports that only a handful of early Christian writers declared that the earth is flat. "In the first fifteen centuries of the Christian era," Russell writes, "five writers seem to have denied the globe, and a few others were ambiguous or uninterested in the question. But nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical, and by the fifteenth century all doubt had disappeared." So how did this myth get started? Russell traces its origins to two sources: Washington Irving�s horribly inaccurate biography of Christopher Columbus, published in 1828, and a scholarly article by French scholar Antoine-Jean Letronne, published in 1834. Irving, on the one hand, apparently wanted a dramatic image that would grip his readers, so he cast Columbus as the bold mariner who argued courageously for truth and common sense before a council of inquisitors and hooded theologians. In fact, Columbus did appear before a council to defend his ideas. But it was a council of scientists, and the issue was not the roundness of the globe, but how far Columbus would have to sail to reach Asia. The scientists thought that Columbus had grievously underestimated the distance. And they were right. As Russell points out, "If God or good luck had not put America--the West Indies--in the way to catch him, Columbus and his crews might indeed have perished, not from falling off the earth but from starvation and thirst." Letronne, on the other hand, was motivated by an anti-religious bias and had to use some shabby moves to make his case. But his prestige was such that other scholars used his material without checking it. Despite Irving�s popularity and Letronne�s prestige, their mistakes might have had little effect were it not for Darwin�s theory of evolution. Following the publication of his Origin of Species in 1859, the flat-earth myth became orthodoxy when Darwin�s defenders began using it to attack their Christian critics. Like many Darwinists today, they portrayed their critics as hopelessly shackled by superstition. As Russell�s book shows, however, the problem was not medieval superstitions, but modern fabrications--a lesson we should not soon forget. This article appeared in the November 1997 issue of Teachers in Focus magazine. Mark Hartwig is Social Research Analyst, Origins Controversy, for Focus on the Family. He has been involved in the Origins debate for over 20 years and was an early organizer for the Intelligent Design movement.

Aristotle and the Ancient Greeks were actually the first to argue that the Earth was round. And none of them were frowned upon on beause of it. Aristotle, even though he came up with some pretty outside-the-box ideas and theories, was highly regarded by everyone. You know why? Because he always provided proof to his claims.

Do the same and I'll gladly STFU. All you're doing for now is asking questions that even you don't have an answer for.

Columbus would have looked pretty silly if he said, "hey, everyone, do you guys ever think the Earth isn't flat?" And people would go, "What is it then?" and he'd reply "How the fuck should I know? You're all brainwashed sheep." What he did was say "Hey, I think the Earth is round, not flat. And I can prove it by sailing in a straight line and coming back to the spot where I started from" And the King went, "Well, here's some ships, off you go then. Make sure to hit up India on the way and bring me back some loot".

All I'm telling you is, "off you go then."

quote:

Originally posted by Cosmic Fur Releasing the tapes to the public would just give the conspiracy nuts more "proof" to work with to spin their tales.

Ummm... how? IF the videos showed a 757 crashing into the pentagon, then I would STFU and make fun of the conspiracy theorists as well.

Also, that pic still has a very small amount of plane debris.

But im sure since Mr. Allyn E. Kilsheimer says its true, then you must be right and im going to shut up now.




Also, heres a link & pics showing what would happen if a jumbo jet crashed into the pentagon.. this is just a simulation of course, BUT IT HAPPEND BEFORE 9/11!!

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html

Have a good night.

Current Score:

Conspiracy Theorists: 1

Normal people: 20


We are back in the game.

quote:

Originally posted by cyper Ummm... how? IF the videos showed a 757 crashing into the pentagon, then I would STFU and make fun of the conspiracy theorists as well. Also, that pic still has a very small amount of plane debris. But im sure since Mr. Allyn E. Kilsheimer says its true, then you must be right and im going to shut up now.

Christ, the plane didn't make a crash landing, ffs. It flew into a building. Carrying hundreds of thousands of tonnes of highly combustible jet fuel. Most of the wreckage disintegrated (yeah, aluminum, the stuff plane fuselages are made of, melts at a lot lower temperature than 800� to 1500�F, which is how hot airplane fuel burns at) on impact. This is why there's almost no wreckage to find - it all pretty much turned into liquid. Except for the landing gear. Which is made of very strong steel alloys to withstand the incredible forces it comes under as the plane is landing. Which is why the landing gear made it through the second wall, and the rest of the plane didn't.

quote:

Originally posted by cyper Also, heres a link & pics showing what would happen if a jumbo jet crashed into the pentagon.. this is just a simulation of course, BUT IT HAPPEND BEFORE 9/11!! http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html Have a good night.

Christ, the plane didn't make a crash landing inside the courtyard, as the simulation simulated:

quote:

A plane crash is simulated inside the cardboard courtyard of a surprisingly realistic-looking model Pentagon. This "tabletop" exercise was designed to help emergency relief personnel better prepare for disasters when they occur.

it flew into the side of a building. (wow, feels like I've said that before) A bit of a difference. The simulation you posted wasn't to show what would happen if a plane flew into the Pentagon, but rather to test the emergency procedures of the emergency crew.

To further destroy whatever hope you may have had for that simulation proving your argument, I'll state a very nice quote that someone on TA has in their sig: "In theory, there is no difference between practice and theory, but in practice, there is." Which basically means, that even if they did fly a cardboard plane into a cardboard model of a building, that doesn't come anywhere close to modelling what would happen in real life.

quote:

Originally posted by cyper Current Score: Conspiracy Theorists: 1 Normal people: 20 We are back in the game.

Don't count your chickens before they're hatched. Wait a bit, and let me reply. As far as I see, you still have 0.

quote:

Originally posted by Cosmic Fur Don't count your chickens before they're hatched. Wait a bit, and let me reply. As far as I see, you still have 0.

Dont worry, maybe one day this week i'll be able to get 1

I've seen this before but it's very well done.

It's pretty obvious that the offical word from the Pentagon, that a Boeing 757 hit the building, is absolute bullshit. Something did hit it, possibly a smaller plane or a missile. Why the Yanks would cover up is anyone's guess....but something here is clearly not right.

Sigh.

It's always something. The Freemasons. The Illuminati. The Neocons. The Skull and Bones Society. The Men In Black. The Jews. They're all real groups but they don't have any universal power or political agendas.

I don't normally cite Wikipedia as a source, but they have a really good article about conspiracy theories that explains the major features of them and how to recognize them, why they're a crock, and why people come up with them. For the non-wack-jobs in here, it's actually a pretty good read.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Sigh. It's always something. The Freemasons. The Illuminati. The Neocons. The Skull and Bones Society. The Men In Black. The Jews. They're all real groups but they don't have any universal power or political agendas. I don't normally cite Wikipedia as a source, but they have a really good article about conspiracy theories that explains the major features of them and how to recognize them, why they're a crock, and why people come up with them. For the non-wack-jobs in here, it's actually a pretty good read.

well you can believe everything the US government tells you if you want. They're the most honest and reliable government in the entire world!

The best thing about that video is the reporter asking the question why there wasn't evidence of a typical plane crash like a long landing skid, wreckage, etc. His reply...."There is evidence, it's just not visible". Yes....ok sure.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 well you can believe everything the US government tells you if you want. They're the most honest and reliable government in the entire world!

I don't know why you roll your eyes - which other government would you place your trust in? The Japanese? Chinese? German? Russian? French? Chretien/Martin's Liberals? Perhaps some of the lovely Islamic theocracies in the middle East?

All things considered I'd say the U.S. government has a pretty damn good track record.

In any event, it's got nothing to do with simply believing what the "government" says, it's believing what a massive abundance of factual information from thousands of 3rd-party researchers says. And not believing the fallacious and horribly improbable conspiracy theories coming out of Left-wing nutjobs.

I have come to the conclusion that you can never convince DigiNut into believing us.

Just like he will never convince us into believing him.

So I guess it doesnt matter who is right.

quote:

Originally posted by cyper I have come to the conclusion that you can never convince DigiNut into believing us.

You're on the right track, but more correctly stated it would be that you can never convince me of those theories without evidence. And if you cannot be convinced that those theories are false despite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary, then you are a fool.

I refuse to wave this off as an "agree to disagree" issue. These conspiracy theories are wrong; they are based on little to no supporting evidence, they oversimplify and personify complex social issues, they fail the scientific method test, they fail Occam's razor, they fail the multiplication of entities test, and they rely heavily on confirmation bias and several logical fallacies. THEY ARE BULLSHIT.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut [COLOR=#99CCEE] All things considered I'd say the U.S. government has a pretty damn good track record. COLOR]

all credibility lost right there Sir.

Hmm...let's see here.

-1961 Bay of Pigs...yep, good show there, righteous Americans.
-Vietnam War or "Police Action" - the crusade against Communism! What a lovely and just war that was.
- support of all the bannana republics in Central and South America, even outright dictators who oppressed their own people.
- the Nuclear Arms Race...the country in the early 80s was suffering from a massive recession, yet Reagan still spent trillions on nukes, even though about a 100 hydrogen bombs would destroy the northern hemisphere. Excellent use of government funds.
- The current Iraq debacle. - ignoring all evidence to supercede the UN to invade a country who never had any WMD's. Democracy at its best.

Of course, we could go into domestic problems as well.....slavery, being the LAST western nation to ban it, treatment of african americans through the 1900s, treatment of Native Americans....it just goes on and on.

They'd never lie to us, would they?

ok lets say the attacks on 911 were real and the U.S government is telling the truth(ya my ass) then someone tell me where the fuck are all the WMD in Iraq? and where is Osama?and why didnt they shoot the ****** when they had the chance in Afghanistan?

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer and where is Osama?and why didnt they shoot the ****** when they had the chance in Afghanistan?

Source? This is new info to me.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer ok lets say the attacks on 911 were real and the U.S government is telling the truth(ya my ass) then someone tell me where the fuck are all the WMD in Iraq? and where is Osama?and why didnt shoot the ****** when they had the chance in Afghanistan?

I never said they weren't real...but whatever happened at the Pentagon on that day isn't exactly how the US govt. is saying how it went down. And I wouldn't be surprised if the plane that crashed was actually shot down either. In any case, that decision would probably be justified but would have crucified Bush.

Interesting about Bin Laden...the British SAS apparently had him cornered but when they radioed US Command, they were told to hold for American troops. He of course got away...
I read it in the International Express a few years ago...doesnt surprise me.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 Interesting about Bin Laden...the British SAS apparently had him cornered but when they radioed US Command, they were told to hold for American troops. He of course got away... I read it in the International Express a few years ago...doesnt surprise me.

I have no reason to disbelieve you, but so far it's just hearsay from my POV.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.