Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

9-11 conspiracies. Are you interested?

Are you interested in hearing the "evidence" of 9-11 conspiracy theories?


  • Total voters
    83
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jazzz said:
I've never stated that I believe the holographic planes theory, in fact I don't: when it came up I have simply argued that it is not completely dismissable.

I have no idea about this 'seargent' chap. Or how the towers fell if not straight down. :confused:
At an angle and This to deal with your questions in reverse order.

As for holographic planes, that was an example of when you were too lazy to check the provenance of what you were quoting (an australian "this'd be cool, can someone see if we can make it" pdf for 2025?).
 
fudgefactorfive said:
ffs, why drag up old bollocks like that, bob? I thought you were sick of it?
No, i'm sick of them repeating the same shite in new thread after new thread, when i remind them of their idiocy it's fine. :cool:

Anyway, as i said, i'm bored and they're easy targets to demolish.
 
pembrokestephen said:
Yes, and even more so if it were on a different website:rolleyes:
Well no, and I'm seriously not arguing from the point of the view that conspiracy stuff must be promoted on urban75, but in sorting out these bunfights.

There's always going to be this hellish conflict because there is this schizm of posters who want to discuss 9/11 et al on urban75 and those who see it as an unwelcome intrusion into their beloved fora. One can either live with it (strategy currently adopted, and very difficult, as we have repeatedly seen), ban everyone on one side (there's been effectively a partial strategy in this direction, but as new posters come in so does the conspiracy side of the debate), or create a distinct space. Creating a distinct space is the strategy which has not yet been tried, and should be.
 
Bob_the_lost said:
At an angle and This to deal with your questions in reverse order.

As for holographic planes, that was an example of when you were too lazy to check the provenance of what you were quoting (an australian "this'd be cool, can someone see if we can make it" pdf for 2025?).
Oh, that chap - we'll he wasn't 'rigging the explosives' which was what you referred to. The holographic planes thing was an US military theory manual. Even if you ignore that I provided plenty of evidence that such holographic projections are technically feasible (I still don't believe that that's what happened on 9/11 though).

When I first posted about 9/11 - it was years ago, and there was no '9/11 truth movement'. Yet the MIHOP theory I posted back then has held up remarkably and now millions believe something like that happened rather than the official account. This is what should be good about urban75 - a place where you can venture things, and see what holds up. Or it can simply be a place where everyone parrots the same opinions for ever. It's up to us.
 
Jazzz said:
Oh, that chap - we'll he wasn't 'rigging the explosives' which was what you referred to. The holographic planes thing was an US military theory manual. Even if you ignore that I provided plenty of evidence that such holographic projections are technically feasible (I still don't believe that that's what happened on 9/11 though).

When I first posted about 9/11 - it was years ago, and there was no '9/11 truth movement'. Yet the MIHOP theory I posted back then has held up remarkably and now millions believe something like that happened rather than the official account. This is what should be good about urban75 - a place where you can venture things, and see what holds up. Or it can simply be a place where everyone parrots the same opinions for ever. It's up to us.
Fuck's sakes, you never learn.

It was a fucking Australian file you twallock. You did not provide any proof as we kindly informed you, your link to a company that made the products you claimed would do the job (more or less) was bollocks (yet again you failed to read the small print, or the large print for that matter).

I don't care what you might have done and how far your desperate need for the US to be all powerful has spread. You never learn, it's always the black helicopters. As for your theory holding up? It doesn't. When you care to share theories rather than "this might have happened" they get torn to shreds.
 
Surely the poll should read, "Do you want the same handful of obsessed conspiracy fans to keep on endlessly repeating their evidence-free, credibility-unhindered 'found-on-the-internet' conspiraloon yarns or not"?

After all, that's just all we ever get here.

I'm all for hearing credible, well-researched NEW information about the events of 9/11, but I'm bored to tears with seeing the same bonkers drivel from laughable sources.
 
editor said:
Surely the poll should read, "Do you want the same handful of obsessed conspiracy fans to keep on endlessly repeating their evidence-free, credibility-unhindered 'found-on-the-internet' conspiraloon yarns or not"?

After all, that's just all we ever get here.

I'm all for hearing credible, well-researched NEW information about the events of 9/11, but I'm bored to tears with seeing the same bonkers drivel from laughable sources.

they're still more interesting than this C&P whinge you come out with every single time
 
Conspiracy theory "evidence" is good for a laugh for the first few minutes specially when said "evidence" breaks the laws of physics or chemistry. :D Then it all starts going round in circles. :(
 
You can`t dispute who funded the attacks, you can`t dispute NORAD standing down thanks to Cheney, You can`t dispute the origin of the insider trading.

You guys won`t respond the evidence, putting "evidence" isn`t some kind of nullification of everything I`ve ever said! Its truly pathetic.
 
Azrael23 said:
You guys won`t respond the evidence, putting "evidence" isn`t some kind of nullification of everything I`ve ever said! Its truly pathetic.
What's 'truly pathetic' is when your evidence is contradicted by heaps of experts and you can't admit your wrong and keep avoiding questions. That's truly pathetic.
 
editor said:
I'm all for hearing credible, well-researched NEW information about the events of 9/11, but I'm bored to tears with seeing the same bonkers drivel from laughable sources.

There are a whole bunch of credible sources here:

Morgan Reynolds, PhD - Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Labor under George W. Bush 2001-2002.

"I first began to suspect that 9/11 was in inside job when the Bush-Cheney Administration invaded Iraq. ... We can prove that the government's story is false."

Rep. Curt Weldon - Vice Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Ten-term Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania.

"There's something very sinister going on here that really troubles me,"

Senator Max Cleland - Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned in December 2003.

"It is a national scandal."

Louis Freeh - Director of the FBI, 1993-2001.

"Even the most junior investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists.

Paul Craig Roberts, PhD - Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan, "Father of Reaganomics", Former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Currently Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute.

"We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to "pancake" at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false."

Catherine Austin Fitts - Assistant Secretary of Housing under George H.W. Bush.

"The official story could not possibly have happened... It's not possible. It's not operationally feasible...."

Fred Burks - Former State Department Interpreter for Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Vice Presidents Dick Cheney and Al Gore, Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright. 18-year State Department career.

"How is it possible that our military's highly touted missile detections systems could not locate Flight 77 in the 42 minutes it was known to be lost before it crashed into the heart of the defense system of the U.S.? ...

Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) - Commanding General of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM),1981 - 1984.

"One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army's Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, 'The plane does not fit in that hole'. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"

Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) - Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration

I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that's accurate,' he said

Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) - Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter.

"A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It's impossible. ... There's a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. ... Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don't want us to know what happened and who's responsible. ... Who gained from 9/11?


Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) - Former Director U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project. Regarding the impact at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001

"When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile."


Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force - Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years, flying 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 's. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC).

"The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." ... Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn." ...

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
 
Azrael23 said:
You can`t dispute who funded the attacks, you can`t dispute NORAD standing down thanks to Cheney, You can`t dispute the origin of the insider trading.

You guys won`t respond the evidence, putting "evidence" isn`t some kind of nullification of everything I`ve ever said! Its truly pathetic.
I don't know about that, since you haven't graced us with this evidence in the first place it's kind of hard to disprove it.
 
Azrael23 said:
Did you think of that reply all by yourself?

Its so playground here. I prefer turbo. *awaits....
No, the lizards told me to type it FFS :rolleyes:

What sort of idiotic third rate come back is that anyway? It's like talking to a moody 13 year old.
 
So, i'm to assume that no witty put downs are inbound? I already know you're not going to go all "shock and awe" with evidence, logic or anything else that doesn't come free with a packet of frosties, but i was hoping for a bit more sport this evening.

Ah well, back to work.
 
The Bush administration and the Pentagon are the ones claiming that fundamentalist Islamists were conspiring to attack the west on 911.
Aren't they the real conspiraloons? They are the ones not providing/withholding evidence to prove otherwise.

Sorry, I can't help but be skeptikal.

Those crying "conspiraloons" are actually singing the exact same song as the air traffic controllers/pilots and scholars being quoted in the links provided.

:confused:
 
It would be interesting to actually see some evidence for a change, rather than the mix of half-truth, misunderstanding, bad science and outright fabrication that passes for "evidence" in the minds of most conspiracy theorists. I'd like to see them dissociate themselves from the anti-semites too, instead of jumping into bed with them.
 
pocketscience said:
The Bush administration and the Pentagon are the ones claiming that fundamentalist Islamists were conspiring to attack the west on 911.
Yes, we know what conspire means.

<Twilight Zone Music> doo doo doo-doo, doo doo doo-doo </Twilight Zone Music>
 
Yeah well, obviously Hagal works for the CIA and is just pretending to support the 911 conspiratheorists in order to undermine their credibility.

;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom