More conspiracy theories!

[Slayer 0]

It's called Occam's Razor

I'll blade you with Occam's Razor

[Jingus 0]

Please don't force me to hunt down that ancient thread where I shredded a 9/11 conspiracy theory. I don't like wasting that kind of energy these days.

[Vyce 0]

So a friend of mine may be right about Bush planning it all? I thought he was insane.

No, he is.

 

It's just the sad reality that we live in a country where there are enough dumb fucks who would believe the absolute worst about someone, no matter how incredibly illogical and improbable it may be, simply because they disagree with that individual politically and philosophically.

 

And apparently we have a few of those type of people on this board. You learn to deal with it. Like by taking up liquor or chain smoking an entire pack of cigarettes just to take the edge off of dealing with these folks.

[Art Sandusky 0]

But I don't give a fuck that it's Bush who was in charge or at least somewhat knowing about these theories. Like I told Czech, I just like knowing all the different angles and I never believe the first thing I hear unless it's right in front of me. Fuck party lines. I'm only a Democratic voter because they're the ones closest to what I think that have a snowball's change in hell of ever being elected to any offices.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

So a friend of mine may be right about Bush planning it all? I thought he was insane.

No, he is.

 

It's just the sad reality that we live in a country where there are enough dumb fucks who would believe the absolute worst about someone, no matter how incredibly illogical and improbable it may be, simply because they disagree with that individual politically and philosophically.

 

And apparently we have a few of those type of people on this board. You learn to deal with it. Like by taking up liquor or chain smoking an entire pack of cigarettes just to take the edge off of dealing with these folks.

You must NEVER stop questioning events of this magnitude. The real sad reality is that people immediately dismiss this sort of thing as liberal propaganda and don't really look into it (thats not a statement directed at anyone in particular, because I know a lot of you do your research) In this instance, I don't buy in, but it happens all the time, this bullshit logic. If you question the legality of affirmative action, you're a racist, if you support the war you're a redneck - that sort of thing. I see it more coming from conservatives than anyone lately, though. Politics have become SO partisan that if you question the President you're just a bitter liberal. Probably not that pertinant to the thread, but I felt like bitching.

[Jingus 0]

Of course you must always question everything. But that's very different from always disbelieving everything the government tells you, which is what conspiracy nuts do. It's a matter of expectations: they already think that the government is their enemy, and when you start from an assumption and then look for facts to back it up, you'll always find those facts, whether they really exist or not.

[Guest PlatinumBoy]

I'm not here to argue details about it, i'm just saying try not to be so blind. You can say it's a ridiculous claim, but have you any evidence to prove it false? NO

At least Evidence would be more powerful proof than a "He wouldn't do that!" attitude.

The thing is, these conspiracy people don't really have evidence of their own. A group of engineering folks from Purdue looked at it physics wise and found that a plane is defintely what hit the Pentagon, whereas some of these conspiracy sites I've seen have "evidence" and "claims" about aliens, a Jewish plot, and saying that in movies when buildings blow up it's different looking.

 

If someone from the government, or a REAL Mechanical Engineer, or someone with real evidence shows me something, I'll question 9/11, but when some shut in nut makes a shitty video on the internet and blames the Jews (which the guy who made one of these videos did on his site), I won't believe it.

[Vyce 0]

Politics have become SO partisan that if you question the President you're just a bitter liberal. Probably not that pertinant to the thread, but I felt like bitching.

Well then, since we're being reasonable, I think you would agree that there's a pretty wide fucking gap between simply looking at the President with a critical eye, and asserting that it is entirely plausible that he's responsible for the mass murder of a few thousand American civilians as a part of some bizarre political scheme for power.

 

And let's be honest. Maybe conservatives are more quick to dismiss these conspiracies, but guys like C-Bacon or INXS are more likely to believe it. And I'd feel safe in labeling them "bitter liberals."

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Everyone just needs to go see XXX 2 and chill out.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I'm not here to argue details about it, i'm just saying try not to be so blind. You can say it's a ridiculous claim, but have you any evidence to prove it false? NO

At least Evidence would be more powerful proof than a "He wouldn't do that!" attitude.

The thing is, these conspiracy people don't really have evidence of their own. A group of engineering folks from Purdue looked at it physics wise and found that a plane is defintely what hit the Pentagon, whereas some of these conspiracy sites I've seen have "evidence" and "claims" about aliens, a Jewish plot, and saying that in movies when buildings blow up it's different looking.

My favorite part of the video was

 

 

WHEN PLANES CRASH, THEY LEAVE WRECKAGE!

[Carnival 0]

I'm not saying I believe every 9/11 conspiracy. I didn't watch the video you speak of. I'm just saying I question what really happened. I do think something went down that the american people don't know about. Even if it is that they shot down the 4th plane instead of it just crashing.

 

I'm not a big conspiracy nut either. I can't even think of that many conspiracies.

 

The moon landing was fake. No, i think it was real

 

Government has aliens at area 51. No, i don't believe they do.

 

2nd gunman on the grassy knoll. Yes i believe that.

 

Bush planned 9/11. Not sure. I'm saying for sure that he didn't though.

 

...i can't think of anymore.

[Carnival 0]

Well guess what, he's the motherfuckin', fuckin' one who calls the shots. So deal with it for three more years, hippie.

You shouldnt be posting that. You should be in Iraq if you support him so much.

 

If everyone who hates Bush is a hippie.

Then everyone who supports Bush should join the military.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

You've got to be kidding me? This shit, again?

 

Umm, Hi. My friends SAW the plane hit the pentagon, and my current Girlfriend was a contractor working @ the pentagon that day. Yeah, it was a plane.

 

And really, look at the Popular Mechanics Article. Research how the Pentagon was built. I can't believe anyone with any sense of intelligent is entertaining these notions

 

And Jingus, just for you, here is your thread. Your post is on page 3.

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...pic=60552&st=60

[Art Sandusky 0]

I just want to know why they won't show videos from other places that could have seen it. If there's absolutely nothing to hide at all, then what's the problem?

[Carnival 0]

I saw a video and a history channel documentary about the physics of the plane crash into the pentagon. And i think it really was a plane. either that or a plane shaped missle. They had security camera footage on the show. It was only a frame per sec. but you can totally see a plane. then the next frame is just fire.

 

One part of the show i found weird was that during the summer of 01 they installed a new "super powerful" sprinkler system in the pentagon. ironically it was installed on the side of the pentagon that was attacked. They install a new sprinkler system in the summer, on that side only, then just stop.

 

There is just too many little things about the whole 9/11 story that remain unexplained. Way too unexplained for me to accept the governments story of it.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I just want to know why they won't show videos from other places that could have seen it. If there's absolutely nothing to hide at all, then what's the problem?

Well, what other places? Do we even know if those cameras could see the impact? I mean, I'm trying to figure out which gas station that guy was at, because I really don't know of a gas station around the pentagon that had a good angle on the impact site (and I drive by the pentagon about twice a week). There isn't a whole lot of places where there'd be video cameras, and the Pentagon ain't exactly a tourist trap, let alone near a tourist trap. They don't let you videotape inside Arlington Cemetary, and Pentagon City obscures the Reagan Airport and anyone from Alexandria ways. There's Fort Myer nearby, but since its a fort, not exactly alot of tourists there either.

 

That question, is one alot of conspiracy guys always ask. They want more, and more, and more proof. The lack of showing videotape is not proof. Hell, there's probably some security concerns there.

 

A plane hit. Otherwise, about 5 good friends of mine up here are complete liars, and suprisingly, they're all liberals. If you really want to know, pick up the Popular Mechanics piece. It makes ALOT of sense, and alot more credentials

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I saw a video and a history channel documentary about the physics of the plane crash into the pentagon. And i think it really was a plane. either that or a plane shaped missle. They had security camera footage on the show. It was only a frame per sec. but you can totally see a plane. then the next frame is just fire.

 

One part of the show i found weird was that during the summer of 01 they installed a new "super powerful" sprinkler system in the pentagon. ironically it was installed on the side of the pentagon that was attacked. They install a new sprinkler system in the summer, on that side only, then just stop.

 

There is just too many little things about the whole 9/11 story that remain unexplained. Way too unexplained for me to accept the governments story of it.

Correlation does not equal causation. Coincidence involving a sprinkler system? Do you have any idea just how long it takes the government to do ANYTHING? Plans for that system had to have been in the works for YEARS, during CLINTON!

 

It WAS a plane with PEOPLE. Thankfully, the Pentagon is a strong building. One frame of a plane makes sense since its going at 300+ MPH.

 

There's nothing that remains unexplained except for what passes for mostly conspiracy theorist rambles. Pick up the Popular Mechanics article and read it, they thoroughly debunk every conspiracy myth.

 

Or maybe it would help those of you who doubt to travel up here to look at the pentagon itself? Those of us who live here can believe its really that strong, and can see why the plane hit where it did.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Oh, and read the 4 page thread dicussion we already had.

[Art Sandusky 0]

There's no way that a Virginia DOT camera that's always going and showing I-395 and would have showed the plane at least flying over if not the impact shouldn't be shown to the public because of security concerns. It's a perpetually running camera for traffic and stuff, showing a public highway.

[Carnival 0]

Ya the camera was a security camera near the crash site. It was clearly a plane. Or plane shaped missle. haha OK it was a plane.

 

The sprinkler thing IS mostly likely just a coincedence, i know. I just found it weird.

 

I would like to see that article you speak of. Do you know where i could read it?

 

I would like to see how it explains steel melting in the twin towers from simple jet fuel?

 

I would like to see how it explains the ground level explosions before the towers collapsed.

 

I would like to see how it explains the buldge or "2nd Fuel Tank" that you can clearly see on the bottom of the 2nd plane, yet is not usually on any other standard planes?

 

I would also like to see how it explains the fact that none of the terrorists listed as the highjackers were on the passanger lists for those flights?

 

I'm sure it will answer a couple of those at least. Should be interesting.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

There's no way that a Virginia DOT camera that's always going and showing I-395 and would have showed the plane at least flying over if not the impact shouldn't be shown to the public because of security concerns. It's a perpetually running camera for traffic and stuff, showing a public highway.

Wrong. Side. Of. The. Pentagon.

 

The camera you speak of is this one.

http://www.trafficland.com/findacam/traffi...p?uid=0&map=134

395S & 14th

The Washington Blvd Camera is the only one that shows the Pentagon, and as you can see, it only shows 1 side and no angle on the other 4.

 

So, as you can see, it's very easy for me to believe that the camera missed it.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Ya the camera was a security camera near the crash site. It was clearly a plane. Or plane shaped missle. haha OK it was a plane.

 

The sprinkler thing IS mostly likely just a coincedence, i know. I just found it weird.

 

I would like to see that article you speak of. Do you know where i could read it?

 

I would like to see how it explains steel melting in the twin towers from simple jet fuel?

 

I would like to see how it explains the ground level explosions before the towers collapsed.

 

I would like to see how it explains the buldge or "2nd Fuel Tank" that you can clearly see on the bottom of the 2nd plane, yet is not usually on any other standard planes?

 

I would also like to see how it explains the fact that none of the terrorists listed as the highjackers were on the passanger lists for those flights?

 

I'm sure it will answer a couple of those at least. Should be interesting.

1. See my reply to Kotz's post. A simple web search brought up the cameras, you can use the link to view the one Kotz speaks of (which shows nothing) and the Wash Blvd Camera, which shows only 1 side, and the wrong side (non-impact) of the Pentagon.

 

2. See the link I found for Jingus earlier. It's somewhere on those 4 pages. I'm sure you can go to the popular mechanics website and search there.

 

3. Steel didn't burn. However, the High Tempature support beams being taken out by the plane going through would cause the structure to weaken. It weaken enoguh to collapse, the steel does not need to melt to cause this. Physics buddy. High temperatures causes atoms to move around faster, causing instability.

 

4. Read about it at Snopes.com, all these conspiracty theories.

 

5. WHAT ground level explosions? The elevators falling from their shafts as the plane going through cut the cable, thats about all I can think of. Otherwise no dice.

 

6. Have you ever thought that a terrorist would FLY UNDER ANOTHER NAME? I mean, really?

[Art Sandusky 0]

Okay, then say "the camera didn't catch it." Why confiscate the film? I mean, I have no problem with the official story, I just don't get why so much stuff got taken away and not shown to us. It takes all of a few seconds to show the pertinent part of any tape on CNN or some shit, and boom, buncha people shut up about it.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

To maybe see if the camera saw anything.

[Carnival 0]

thanks for the info Stephen Joseph

 

And they probably snatched the camera to see if it caught anything. If it didn't, why mention it again. They COULD have just saw nothing on the camera and just said fuck it, and forgot about it.

[Guest PlatinumBoy]

The moon landing was fake. No, i think it was real

My thing about the moon landing has always been this--with how hardcore the space race was between Russia and the USA, if we faked it the KGB would have found out and burned our asses with it. Just like with 9/11 stuff--someone in the goverment would have had said something about it with proof if Bush did it, unless you A) Believe the Illuminati and Jews did it, or B) Honestly think that everyone who is right wing is a souless bastard who doesn't care at all about America and would gladly kill 5,000 people to make money (which doesn't make sense to begin with since the effect on the economy was a pretty big shock) and would keep this all under wraps--every single one of a conspiracy that would have needed at least 50 people in on it--most likely even more if it was some big X-Files deal.

[Carnival 0]

Ya I agree Russia would have told the world if he had faked it.

 

I also forgot about the AIDS conspiracy.

 

Was AIDS made made? YES

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

The moon landing was fake. No, i think it was real

My thing about the moon landing has always been this--with how hardcore the space race was between Russia and the USA, if we faked it the KGB would have found out and burned our asses with it. Just like with 9/11 stuff--someone in the goverment would have had said something about it with proof if Bush did it, unless you A) Believe the Illuminati and Jews did it, or B) Honestly think that everyone who is right wing is a souless bastard who doesn't care at all about America and would gladly kill 5,000 people to make money (which doesn't make sense to begin with since the effect on the economy was a pretty big shock) and would keep this all under wraps--every single one of a conspiracy that would have needed at least 50 people in on it--most likely even more if it was some big X-Files deal.

Guilty!

[Carnival 0]

Please don't force me to hunt down that ancient thread where I shredded a 9/11 conspiracy theory. I don't like wasting that kind of energy these days.

Unless you were going by the name Justice aswell as Jingus, you didn't shred shit.

 

I read the whole thread and i'm still leaning towards that it was in fact a plane.

[Justice 0]

Please don't force me to hunt down that ancient thread where I shredded a 9/11 conspiracy theory.  I don't like wasting that kind of energy these days.

Unless you were going by the name Justice aswell as Jingus, you didn't shred shit.

 

I read the whole thread and i'm still leaning towards that it was in fact a plane.

And thusly I appear! There's another one, a 7-pager I believe just before this that Jingus had more involvement in.

 

And the idea that Bush somehow planned it in the, oh, 8 months he was in office is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If he had this all planned so that he could go into Iraq, then why attack Afganistan first? For what reason, what logic?