9/11 Conspiracy Thread

#351
#351
Pacer92 said:
Those are coffee pots exploding I suppose.....

Cant make people see what they don't want to see..
Click to expand...

So you take a bunch of uneducated people that very likely have never heard a true explosion before and believe they heard "explosions" on 9/11 and combine it with your conspiracy theories and voila, you have the indisputable proof the buildings were brought down by the government.

And add in Charlie Sheen's significant Hollywood expertise in the field of explosives, because you know, actors are always the best subject matter experts, and you have positive proof the government was behind it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#352
#352
Grand Vol said:
So you take a bunch of uneducated people that very likely have never heard a true explosion before and believe they heard "explosions" on 9/11 and combine it with your conspiracy theories and voila, you have the indisputable proof the buildings were brought down by the government.

And add in Charlie Sheen's significant Hollywood expertise in the field of explosives, because you know, actors are always the best subject matter experts, and you have positive proof the government was behind it.
Click to expand...
What about the video and link I posted? I'm gonna keep bringing it up until someone can prove it false, we could on till the end of time over the collapse
 
#353
#353
Pacer92 said:
15 stories of mass can not compress 90 stories into to ground. Its SIMPLE physics.
Click to expand...

You understand that 15 stories crushes the 16th, then 16 crush 17, then 17 crush 18 etc. right?

In your "simple" physics formula, does it account for the exponential weight of each additional floor on the floor below as it collapses? Your assertion may hold water if each and every floor were strong enough to withstand the equal force being applied above it.

Liken it to a snowball rolling down hill, picking up mass and speed as gravity pulls it down.

I don't think one has to be a physics major or math major to see the flaws in your assertion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#354
#354
OrangeWayOfLife said:
What about the video and link I posted? I'm gonna keep bringing it up until someone can prove it false, we could on till the end of time over the collapse
Click to expand...

I can't speak for everyone, but that thing is too long for me to watch at the moment. If you could provide a summary, I'll try to respond.
 
#356
#356
It hits on the owner of the buildings, insider trading the day before on united airlines and delta and several companies directly involved, and the suspicious activity by the company that was on the floors that got hit. I know that's vague but I don't want to screw up any statements. Need to get past the how (that everyone is tied up on here) and move on to the who and why if you really want to see some substance of why credible people have their doubts on the official report
 
#357
#357
OrangeWayOfLife said:
It hits on the owner of the buildings, insider trading the day before on united airlines and delta and several companies directly involved, and the suspicious activity by the company that was on the floors that got hit. I know that's vague but I don't want to screw up any statements. Need to get past the how (that everyone is tied up on here) and move on to the who and why if you really want to see some substance of why credible people have their doubts on the official report
Click to expand...

So I watched a bit about the "abnormal" trading. Having done some of this type research a long time ago I'm pretty confident that one could find hundreds (thousands?) of examples throughout any given year. All it takes is a higher than normal level of trading on a particular stock at a particular time. Basically it is a statistically analysis that looks at a specific data point (the focal trade) relative to all other data points. If you have an outlier you have an "abnormal trade".

Abnormal trades are not the same thing as insider trading. If you watch the video the "research" supporting insider trading does not show insider trading. It shows abnormal trades that could be "consistent with" insider trading.

I'm willing to bet there were other "abnormal trades" on airline stocks at other points in the year but those were not looked at.

Insider trading is a crime. Some of the abnormal trading was investigated and not found to be inside trading; no crime.

Are we to believe that the investigators are in on it too? That they were told not to investigate and said "okay" or did investigate and found the evidence but since they were part of it; buried the evidence?

So here's the bigger problem. These "facts" are never looked at in the bigger context (e.g. abnormal trading occurs probably every day) and ignore the controls (the # of people involved would have to be huge since investigation occurs across numerous agencies and hundreds of people).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#358
#358
Thanks BHAM, but what about the rest of the points made by the video. Another inside trade was also with a defense contractor. The sec looked in to it so it apparently had some substance. But anyhow, that was only one point brought by the video. What the company that was located on the floors that got hit. They are also referenced in the link I posted prior to the video
 
#359
#359
OrangeWayOfLife said:
Thanks BHAM, but what about the rest of the points made by the video. Another inside trade was also with a defense contractor. The sec looked in to it so it apparently had some substance. But anyhow, that was only one point brought by the video. What the company that was located on the floors that got hit. They are also referenced in the link I posted prior to the video
Click to expand...

I haven't watched it all but let's take the trade above. The SEC looked into it. What did they find? What did they conclude?

The conspiracy heads I win/tails you lose is: a) they found insider trading so that proves it or b) they didn't find insider trading but they are in on it or the finding got scrubbed so that proves it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#360
#360
Septic said:
You understand that 15 stories crushes the 16th, then 16 crush 17, then 17 crush 18 etc. right?

In your "simple" physics formula, does it account for the exponential weight of each additional floor on the floor below as it collapses? Your assertion may hold water if each and every floor were strong enough to withstand the equal force being applied above it.

Liken it to a snowball rolling down hill, picking up mass and speed as gravity pulls it down.

I don't think one has to be a physics major or math major to see the flaws in your assertion.
Click to expand...

Not at freefall speed. This is proven in several of the videos of you'll take time to watch them.
 
#361
#361
Pacer92 said:
Not at freefall speed. This is proven in several of the videos of you'll take time to watch them.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out numerous times, the buildings did not collapse at freefall speed. This can be easily seen since the debris was falling faster than the buildings. The buildings met brief resistance as they fell, the debris did not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#362
#362
How would they prove prior knowledge? A whole lot of people made a whole lot of money out of the deal. The Saudi businessman is very interesting. Have you made it that far yet?
 
#364
#364
OrangeWayOfLife said:
How would they prove prior knowledge? A whole lot of people made a whole lot of money out of the deal. The Saudi businessman is very interesting. Have you made it that far yet?
Click to expand...

I haven't and likely won't.

All I'll say is that a whole lot of people make a whole lot of money out of big trades all the time; including Saudi business men. Do these analyses compare all such instances or just look one around this date.

I bet I can find someone who made a ton of money a day before Obama announced some policy and if I look hard enough I can make some link between that person and someone who is somehow "connected" to Obama. Does that mean it was insider trading and Obama tipped the guy off? Absolutely not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#365
#365
Let's start simple. Take the entire operation and try to conceive of how massive a logistical undertaking it would be then conservatively multiply that by 100 and you're probably getting close. Now take the (IMO simply flat out impossible) degree of secrecy, subterfuge and mind numbing amount of complicity across an enormous amount of people and simply ask yourself not only how it makes any sense they could pull it off but why even try?

Look, even if you did manage to get the planes in the air and under government control and slam them into the towers and Pentagon why wouldn't that be enough? Death and destruction at iconic landmarks...why the hell multiply the complexity and risk of things going wrong/be discovered with the plan by oh, IDK, a factor of a million? Why not just have some guys crop dust Times Square with anthrax? Pack in a couple dirty bombs (or even a real suitcase nuke if you want to go big)? All of these (and any number of alternatives) would have been at least as (if not more) effective in instilling real fear and would be soooooooooooooooooooo much easier to control and reduce risk of exposure. But no, the answer is a plan of nigh obscene elaboration and complicit involvement.

Saturn's rings wouldn't make a large enough Occam's Razor to cover this idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#366
#366
I encourage you to watch the rest because it moves on from insider trades. The Saudi businessman wasn't anything to do with the trades
 
#367
#367
bamawriter said:
As has been pointed out numerous times, the buildings did not collapse at freefall speed. This can be easily seen since the debris was falling faster than the buildings. The buildings met brief resistance as they fell, the debris did not.
Click to expand...

Wtc 1 fell in 11 sec. Wtc 2 in 9.5 sec. Wtc 7 in 6.5 sec.

Jumpers took approximately 10 sec. To hit the ground with no resistence.

9/11 victims who fell from Twin Towers 'appeared to be blinded by smoke' | Daily Mail Online
 
#368
#368
hndog609 said:
Let's start simple. Take the entire operation and try to conceive of how massive a logistical undertaking it would be then conservatively multiply that by 100 and you're probably getting close. Now take the (IMO simply flat out impossible) degree of secrecy, subterfuge and mind numbing amount of complicity across an enormous amount of people and simply ask yourself not only how it makes any sense they could pull it off but why even try?

Look, even if you did manage to get the planes in the air and under government control and slam them into the towers and Pentagon why wouldn't that be enough? Death and destruction at iconic landmarks...why the hell multiply the complexity and risk of things going wrong/be discovered with the plan by oh, IDK, a factor of a million? Why not just have some guys crop dust Times Square with anthrax? Pack in a couple dirty bombs (or even a real suitcase nuke if you want to go big)? All of these (and any number of alternatives) would have been at least as (if not more) effective in instilling real fear and would be soooooooooooooooooooo much easier to control and reduce risk of exposure. But no, the answer is a plan of nigh obscene elaboration and complicit involvement.

Saturn's rings wouldn't make a large enough Occam's Razor to cover this idea.
Click to expand...
You're asking why, I'm trying to post information on those involved and the incentives why. But all that wants to be debated is how the damn towers fell. One person looked at one point made and determined . People make money off trades all the time. And then doesn't even want to hear the rest
 
#369
#369
bamawriter said:
As has been pointed out numerous times, the buildings did not collapse at freefall speed. This can be easily seen since the debris was falling faster than the buildings. The buildings met brief resistance as they fell, the debris did not.
Click to expand...

And the debris was being propelled out..
 
#371
#371
hndog609 said:
Let's start simple. Take the entire operation and try to conceive of how massive a logistical undertaking it would be then conservatively multiply that by 100 and you're probably getting close. Now take the (IMO simply flat out impossible) degree of secrecy, subterfuge and mind numbing amount of complicity across an enormous amount of people and simply ask yourself not only how it makes any sense they could pull it off but why even try?

Look, even if you did manage to get the planes in the air and under government control and slam them into the towers and Pentagon why wouldn't that be enough? Death and destruction at iconic landmarks...why the hell multiply the complexity and risk of things going wrong/be discovered with the plan by oh, IDK, a factor of a million? Why not just have some guys crop dust Times Square with anthrax? Pack in a couple dirty bombs (or even a real suitcase nuke if you want to go big)? All of these (and any number of alternatives) would have been at least as (if not more) effective in instilling real fear and would be soooooooooooooooooooo much easier to control and reduce risk of exposure. But no, the answer is a plan of nigh obscene elaboration and complicit involvement.

Saturn's rings wouldn't make a large enough Occam's Razor to cover this idea.
Click to expand...

Simply, because none of what you said could be etched into the minds of Americans like 911. The scale and magnitude of this event could only have the effect it did, by being played out live on tv...
 
#373
#373
Pacer92 said:
Wtc 1 fell in 11 sec. Wtc 2 in 9.5 sec. Wtc 7 in 6.5 sec.

Jumpers took approximately 10 sec. To hit the ground with no resistence.

9/11 victims who fell from Twin Towers 'appeared to be blinded by smoke' | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

Here's something I don't understand. The only way there would be no falling resistance is if a demolition occurred on ON FLOORS of the building.

Even if charges were set at the bottom or at the top or in the middle there would still be falling resistance. All supports everywhere would have to be blown to remove any falling resistance.

Is the conspiracy here that both towers were detonated from top to bottom? If not, then there has to be falling resistance; particularly since the buildings are pancaking and not falling over.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top