911 conspiracy theories (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter staticsiscool
- Start date
staticsiscool
Banned
looks pus. also wtf is with their 1st yr stream? we start where their 2nd yr does. also apparently usq aint that bad and has awards for being the best uni for distance ed?
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
well i dont know, stop whinging
i thought geelong would be better than travelling to toowoomba, plus you'd get credits
i thought geelong would be better than travelling to toowoomba, plus you'd get credits
staticsiscool
Banned
yeah well i thought hiv would be better than aids but apparently they are the same thing
staticsiscool
Banned
But apparently unless i go to uts i will be a fail.
Edit: Apparently i didn't look hard enough and curtin uni does it too. Wheres that? like perth?
Edit: Apparently i didn't look hard enough and curtin uni does it too. Wheres that? like perth?
Last edited:
themadness
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2008
- Messages
- 19
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
I'm fighting the urge to register that domain name ...Captain Hero said:
Captain Hero
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 659
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
I prefer to call it blue sky solutioneering patriot-style but whateverslickstar_01 said:
leon4u
Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2007
- Messages
- 94
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Of course alot of it is BS. My uncle was in the building when it happened and is 100% sure bombs were going off as there were expolisions coming from left right and centre when he was trying to leave.
I cbf elaborating on the theories.. 2 long
I cbf elaborating on the theories.. 2 long
Garygaz
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,827
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
After reading up on this, the only thing that I am left confused about is the pentagon, as the hole in the side does not represent the size of a passenger plane, as well as there being no real wreckage. Also the plane that crashed over Pennsylvania is quite sus, another total lack of crash debris.
what people must understand is the the steel infrastructure in the twin towers was melting. HOW???
the bottom part of the towers is the stronges part of the tower!!! and it pancaked on itself.
geezzz... i can go on forever...
look closely, the planes had no windows. thus, not passenger jets.
the news reportings were scripted.
the weeks leading to 911 - certain levels were closed, emptied, and sounds of tools and heavy machinery were heard...
possibly demolition workers placing charges??? who knows...
mehh. ill stop here...
have a good think. im not expecting to change minds or whatever, but after my own personal research, thats what ive come up with...
- its impossible for it to melt in open atmosphere. only if is contained in a furnace.
- which means special chemicals were placed in the towers infrastructure beforehand to melt the steel when the charges went off.
the bottom part of the towers is the stronges part of the tower!!! and it pancaked on itself.
geezzz... i can go on forever...
look closely, the planes had no windows. thus, not passenger jets.
the news reportings were scripted.
the weeks leading to 911 - certain levels were closed, emptied, and sounds of tools and heavy machinery were heard...
possibly demolition workers placing charges??? who knows...
mehh. ill stop here...
have a good think. im not expecting to change minds or whatever, but after my own personal research, thats what ive come up with...
staticsiscool
Banned
lol retard
There is wreckage... you can see it... the people on the ground saw it... The hole represents the size of the fuselage, however make sure you're looking at the right photo because often conspiracy theorists are ignoring the larger hole surrounding the smaller one.Garygaz said:
It was in a furnace, just with a few slits open on the side (windows)... still very hot. Definitely hot enough to weaken the structural integrity of steel, though of course not enough to entirely melt it.
The bottom part of the tower was also... to a surprising extent still there? You also have to realise that being a progressive collapse, as the top floors gathered weight from other floors it gained in strength.
Err... Well the video footage shows us nothing that we don't see if we took similar video footage from the ground of similar aircraft. If you don't believe the passenger jets were flown into the plane, what do you believe happened?
P.S. You 9/11 conspiracy tards always talk about 'your personal research', hows bout you collate that research and submit it for peer review?
Last edited:
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
The doco I saw about the Pentagon was pretty convincing, but not about the holes and stuff.
The topography of the area meant the plane had to fly closely above the ground for 1km to be able to hit the pentagon where it did, which was impossible for a plane that size.
But iono, it was just interesting, doubt there is too much substance behind it
The topography of the area meant the plane had to fly closely above the ground for 1km to be able to hit the pentagon where it did, which was impossible for a plane that size.
But iono, it was just interesting, doubt there is too much substance behind it
It's not impossible at all.katie tully said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nBaU0vwP-o
You also have a heap of eye witnesses saying that they saw the plane hit these lightpoles:
let alone those who saw the plane hit the pentagon.
Last edited:
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
Yeah but they were saying that for the plane to come down from the height it was, it had to turn around in the sky which they said takes 3 attempts from even the best pilots, and the topography of the area made it impossible of a plane that size to fly that low for that long.Enteebee said:
I'm just saying what was on the doco mang. Ill see if I can find a clip of it.
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
starts at about a minute 30
pretty sure this is the one i saw, it was on the history channel in september during the anniversary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxa5dLSIWrM
edit: im not saying there is any validity to the claims, but as far as conspiracy theories go it's pretty interesting
pretty sure this is the one i saw, it was on the history channel in september during the anniversary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxa5dLSIWrM
edit: im not saying there is any validity to the claims, but as far as conspiracy theories go it's pretty interesting
Well, best pilots are usually trying to land and live. But other than a few whackjob pilots for truth I have heard many pilots comment that what he did wasnt difficult, just dangerous and the sort of thing you wouldn't want to do. "The topography of the area" doesn't make it impossible for a plane of that size to flow that low for that long... In fact as I showed, it hit light posts as it was on its way in.
I find it interesting that they think NIST is a part of some conspiracy and is faking the flight recorder data... and then they fake it in a way which leads you with a plane doing a maneuver which is impossible.
That video didn't show what you thought it would. There is nothing more 'interesting' about these claims than any other the others... If they believe such a maneuver is so difficult/impossible then they should submit a paper for peer review alleging such.
I find it interesting that they think NIST is a part of some conspiracy and is faking the flight recorder data... and then they fake it in a way which leads you with a plane doing a maneuver which is impossible.
That video didn't show what you thought it would. There is nothing more 'interesting' about these claims than any other the others... If they believe such a maneuver is so difficult/impossible then they should submit a paper for peer review alleging such.
Last edited: