The looniest conspiracys theories!

[fucktopgirl]

yes indeed,one of the best! (http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/05-government/C-fraud/01-911/2003/05C1-10-11-03-the-looniest-of-all-911-conspiracy-theories.html)

[greedygretchen]

haha- I wonder where these whackjob conspiracy theorists get off spouting their nonsense! ;) This article reminded me of the type of rationale I read during the BBMB twin towers debate like "but no there was *so much* fuel" and "a 2.1 tremor brought down building 7" anyway, thanks for the good read, fucktopgirl!

[ASsman]

Hah, I was about to bitch you out about it. Until I began to read it, good post.

[Ace42X]

Whoever wrote that article needs to provide links to citations for all of his facts. A quick wiki should've gotten him a lot of facts - wing-spans, melting points, fuel composition and exothermic properties, etc etc.

As it stands, I felt it wasn't that compelling. It raises a lot of questions, but it doesn't provide a conclusive refutation.

[fucktopgirl]

Glad that you enjoy it!

Ace ,you have to admit that even there is not a lots of links to support is analysis ;it is a fairly sharp observation of the matter!

[Qdrop]

what really bugs me about the "pentagon attack was done by a missile" conspiracy....is then what happened to the people that were on the REAL plane that was supposed to have hit the pentagon?
where are they?
did aliens take them?

[ASsman]

Blow up elsewhere? Who knows, yet.

[EN[i]GMA]

what really bugs me about the "pentagon attack was done by a missile" conspiracy....is then what happened to the people that were on the REAL plane that was supposed to have hit the pentagon?
where are they?
did aliens take them?

And weren't people on these planes talking while this stuff was happening?

[Qdrop]

the pentagon plane:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

the stock trading thing:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

the bin laden relatives being escorted out of the US after 9/11:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

[ToucanSpam]

Do you get paid for every snopes.com link you post? Are you their pimp or something?

[fucktopgirl]

what really bugs me about the "pentagon attack was done by a missile" conspiracy....is then what happened to the people that were on the REAL plane that was supposed to have hit the pentagon?
where are they?
did aliens take them?

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

i find this link in my research!!Pictures of the actual site,i guess really revealing by themselves!

[Ace42X]

it is a fairly sharp observation of the matter!

It seems it, prima face, but what if it turns out that all of the facts he cited are wrong?

If there were, one must speculate that they somehow got on board without being filmed by any of the security cameras and without being registered on the passenger lists. But the curly question of how they are supposed to have got on board is all too mundane for the exciting world of the conspiracy theorist.

What if they were on the security cameras? I don't know the intricacies of airport CCTV. I don't know whether there was footage or not available, I don't know if the security cameras DO record every other passenger. At the moment, I only have this reporter's word that something is amiss.

With vague mumblings that they must have been using false ID (but never specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were traced to their real identities), they quickly bypass this problem, to relate exciting and sinister tales about how some of the fictitious fiends were actually searched before boarding because they looked suspicious.

However, as inevitably happens with any web of lies, this simply paints them into an even more difficult corner. How are they supposed to have gotten on board with all that stuff if they were searched? And if they used gas in a confined space, they would have been affected themselves unless they also had masks in their luggage.

"Excuse me sir, why do you have a boxcutter, a gun, a container of gas, a gas mask and an electronic guidance unit in your luggage?"

Classic Strawman - I don't recall anyone saying gas was used, nor there being mumblings of false IDs, nor how these "false IDs" were used. The fact that the people were searched, or not, is irrelevant. The "shoe bomber" managed to smuggle a bomb onboard, despite being searched in the more stringent post 9/11 climate. It is not unthinkable people could get some rudimentary knives past a lazy and unwatchful security guard.

Likewise, I don't recall any mention of "electronic guidance units" in the media.

"Very strange," thinks the security officer. "That's the fourth Arabic man without an Arabic name who just got on board with a knife, gun or boxcutter and gas mask

Because terrorists never smuggle weapons onto planes. It's not like it has happened dozens of times over the last 30 years or anything...

They will allege that the hijackers' passports were found at the crash scenes.(...) So they got on board with false IDs but took their real passports with them?

Even false passports can be tracked back to an individual. A fake passport requires a GENUINE picture in them - so that when it is inspected by an official, they pass the person pictured in it through. This photo is all that is needed to identify the individuals.

"Well, why aren't they on the passenger lists?"

Aren't they? I haven't seen the passenger manifests, and I do not know what name was on the Passports (fake or otherwise).

It seems quite plausible that the fake identifies, which are the same as those on the fake passports, are also found on a passenger manifest somewhere.

"Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely incinerated the planes and all the passengers?"

Did it "completely incinerate the planes and all the passengers" ? I wasn't at the scene, and so I have no idea. It is quite possible this guy is making "incinerated planes" and "incinerated passengers" up, and like lots of detritus, they were found quite clearly. It is equally possible that the charred and incinerated humans were unidentifiable, whereas large portions of the plane remained intact, as did luggage stored in a metal container in the storage compartent.

Hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do. Hijacking it without the pilot being able to alert ground control is nearly impossible. The pilot has only to punch in a four digit code to alert ground control to a hijacking.

Which is bullshit - if hijacking a plane was so hard, the terrorists wouldn't be so famous for doing it. As for being able to punch a four digit code to alert ground control, I have no idea, but I am also skeptical. If a pilot and co-pilot are being threatened, and told "Punch that code, and I kill a hostage" (or even the pilot) - are they necessarily going to risk it?

Not just on one plane, but on all four.

Except for the one where the passengers allegedly rested control back before it crashed into vacant land.

because according to another piece of hearsay peddled by the conspiracy buffs, these guys actually went out drinking and womanizing the night before their great martyrdom,

Again, classic strawman "according to some un-named people that you have no way of verifying or analysing".

Their practical training had allegedly been limited to Cessnas and flight simulators

"Allegedly." On the otherhand it is quite possible that they had extensive training beforehand elsewhere.

its not clear why they would have decided to risk blowing their cover to U.S. intelligence services by doing the training in Florida, rather than somewhere in the Middle East,

A good point, but there are plenty of explanations, and that is assuming you accept they were in Florida training in the first place. It could be that they had practiced flying jumbos back home, etc - and flying the cessnas was there to get familiar with US air-traffic control protocols, etc.

Did the mythical Arabs also haul a huge heap of explosives on board, and manage to deploy them in such a manner that they went off in the exact instant of the crash, completely vapourizing the plane?

Quite possibly. It is hardly difficult. Suicide bombers do this sort of thing all the time. It is quite possible that they placed the bombs throughout the plane beforehand, and it is these, rather than "boxcutters" that they used to threaten the pilot. Or it is possible that there were no "explosions" and that this guy is making things up.

Planes do not and cannot blow up into nothing in that manner when they crash.

Don't they? How do I know that? How does he know that? What if planes DO blow up into "nothing" in that manner when they crash? What then? What if it didn't "blow up into nothing" - and his assertion that there were no remains is faulty?

Again, without links or evidence, it is just assertion and speculation.

Sluggishly combustible jet fuel, which is basically kerosene and which burns at a maximum temperature of around 800 C, has suddenly taken on the qualities of a ferociously explosive demolition agent, vapourizing 65 tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke. Never mind that a plane of that size contains around 15 tons of steel and titanium, of which even the melting points are about double that of the maximum combustion temperature of kerosene -- let alone the boiling point -- which is what would be required to vapourize a plane. And then there's about 50 tons of aluminium to be accounted for.

Again, I have no idea how accurate any of this is. I have no idea what the chemical properties of jet fuel is, nor if it is "basically kerosene", or if the "not so basic" differences between it and kerosene just happen to include a higher combustion temperature. I have no idea how much of the plane was recovered, melted, etc, I have no idea what the melting points of those metals are, nor if they are alloyed in planes, etc etc etc.

And as he hasn't provided a single link or citation, he doesn't seem to either.

In excess of 15 pounds of metal was vapourized for each gallon of kerosene.

For each gallon of "basically kerosene, but a bit different, but maybe it counts, maybe it doesn't I don't know. And I didn't say how much fuel the plane had onboard, what the maximum fuel capacity for those planes were, etc etc etc."

Blissfully ignoring the fact that never before or since in aviation history has a plane vapourized into nothing from an exploding fuel load,

Or so he says. Not being an expert on aviation history, I only have his word for it. Having not seen too many of those jumbos crash with a full fuel-load, I have no idea how it works. Nor do I know if a relatively small incendiary device could be secreted near the fuel-bay as an ignition source or accelerent.

"Care to provide any documented examples?

Why should they? He hasn't.

"Yes but not hijacked planes!"
"Are you suggesting that whether the crash is deliberate or accidental affects the combustion qualities of the fuel?"
"Now you're just being silly."

Another blatant straw-man.

nd for this awkward fact the easiest counter is to simply deny that it was a controlled demolition, and claim that the buildings collapsed from fire caused by the burning kerosene.

Again, he seems to have fallen so in love with the idea that Jetfuel is kerosine (having dropepd the 'basically') that he is unwillingto let it go. "from the fire caused by the burning kerosine"

So yes, the fire that was started by the burning kerosine, and then spread to the combustible materials THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING. Another straw-man. No-one is saying that the "kerosine" magically trebled in size, just that the fire was started by it burning. Not an implausible theory, given that office-gutting building collapsing fires can be started by a cigarette falling on the carpet.

it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball, vapourizing a 65-ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000 degrees C for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And, while it was doing all this, it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building.

Another straw-man. Firstly, I don't recall anyone saying it "started fires all through the building" or that it poured down elevator shafts- and metal, being a good conductor of heat, can melt throughout its entire length very easily if one end can get up to temperature.

When I was at school there was a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once

And I knew, even before I studied science at school, that a fuel source can be ignited if there is enough oxygen, fuel and heat. While there was only a limited amount of jet fuel, there was plenty of readily combustible material throughout the building. A fact neatly glossed over. Even a bush fire can reach amazing temperatures, let alone a building filled with petrol-chemical by-products.

Gleefully, they claim that a few thousand gallons of kerosene

Oh, and the tons and tons of combustible material throughout the building...

"The plane was vapourized by the fuel tank explosion," maintain these space loonies, but only one of the people inside it were not identified by DNA testing.

The plane that hit the pentagon was supposed to have been recovered, not vapourised IIRC.

A little later a section of wall about 65 feet wide collapsed in the outer ring. Since the plane, which the conspiracy theorists claim to be responsible for the impact, had a wing span of 125 feet and a length of 155 feet and there was no wreckage of the plane, either inside or outside the building, and the lawns outside were still smooth and green enough to play golf on, this crazy delusion is clearly a physical impossibility.

Did the winds go in that far? Was the section of wall 65 feet wide? Is the wingspan 125 feet, was there no wreckage inside or outside?

Again, only have his word for this, no actual physical evidence, no fact. Just speculation.

I could go on...

It's incredibly shoddily written, and far from conclusive. Without some actual facts and citations, it's just another alarmist rant.

[Qdrop]

Do you get paid for every snopes.com link you post? Are you their pimp or something?

they know thier shit and back it up with research and sound logic.

i support anyone who engages is such activity.

[Qdrop]

here's a good summary of the main conspiracy theories:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

this is actually a well produced documentary....even if it factually flawed.

[Ace42X]

Snopes is good, but it's not THAT good. They aren't super-men. They only have access to facts readily available. If a company is supressing research against their practices, then the only evidence snopes can find is thus going to be pro-corporate, for example.

If the government disseminates facts that support their case, then those are the facts that will be used to justify it. And we KNOW the US governent uses propoganda against its civillian population.

[Qdrop]

Snopes is good, but it's not THAT good. They aren't super-men. They only have access to facts readily available. If a company is supressing research against their practices, then the only evidence snopes can find is thus going to be pro-corporate, for example.

If the government disseminates facts that support their case, then those are the facts that will be used to justify it. And we KNOW the US governent uses propoganda against its civillian population.

yeah, they aren't god-like an all knowing...

but they tend to organize and show all the data available and make pretty sound and even-handed conclusions or proclamations....making snopes a nice link to throw out if you don't feel like typing an encyclopdedia in response to "i went cow tipping!" or "a missile hit the pentagon!"

they're like the on-line text version of myth busters...
not infailable...but pretty sound.

[Ace42X]

I agree, on the whole, I just think they are vulnerable to the possibility of being made pawns of. It would be quite easy for the Republicans to manipulate them.

[Qdrop]

I agree, on the whole, I just think they are vulnerable to the possibility of being made pawns of. It would be quite easy for the Republicans to manipulate them.

yeah, bush hates thier freedom.

[Ali]

the pentagon plane:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

the stock trading thing:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

the bin laden relatives being escorted out of the US after 9/11:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.aspHypocrite.

[chromium05]

What if they were on the security cameras? I don't know the intricacies of airport CCTV. I don't know whether there was footage or not available, I don't know if the security cameras DO record every other passenger. At the moment, I only have this reporter's word that something is amiss.





What if they were? The only reason everyone believes that 19 muslims hijacked the 4 planes is that the US goverment tells us so. As stated in nearly every look at this thing - there were apparently no asians on any of the planes ( really?), yet 19 asians managed to board 4 planes. And, impossibly, several of their passports managed to survive a 1000 degree inferno to back up the "19 muslims" story. (It doesn't help that there are stories of several of these "hijackers" still being alive - proof would be a fucking blessing here)
No video evidence from the airports supports this theory (yet they can provide video surveillance of pretty much anybody else around the world who chooses to fly).
Therefore, it would be logical to conclude that 19 asians DID NOT board the 4 planes.
Which also means that 19 asians DID not hijack the planes.
Which also means that the 19 asians DID not fly those planes into the WTC, Pentagon and a field.
Which could only mean that the whole story is BULLSHIT.

It is all BULLSHIT.

Yet apart from a stack of web links and a few radio stations and books, no-one seems to be doing anything.

One day - something will blow the lid on the whole thing and all fucking hell will break loose.

And people will look at each other asking why no-one did anything about this before.

But it will be too late.

[fucktopgirl]

haha,euh!!i tough it was arabs not "asians"! (!)

[Ali]

What if they were? The only reason everyone believes that 19 muslims hijacked the 4 planes is that the US goverment tells us so. As stated in nearly every look at this thing - there were apparently no asians on any of the planes ( really?), yet 19 asians managed to board 4 planes. And, impossibly, several of their passports managed to survive a 1000 degree inferno to back up the "19 muslims" story. (It doesn't help that there are stories of several of these "hijackers" still being alive - proof would be a fucking blessing here)
No video evidence from the airports supports this theory (yet they can provide video surveillance of pretty much anybody else around the world who chooses to fly).
Therefore, it would be logical to conclude that 19 asians DID NOT board the 4 planes.
Which also means that 19 asians DID not hijack the planes.
Which also means that the 19 asians DID not fly those planes into the WTC, Pentagon and a field.
Which could only mean that the whole story is BULLSHIT.

It is all BULLSHIT.

Yet apart from a stack of web links and a few radio stations and books, no-one seems to be doing anything.

One day - something will blow the lid on the whole thing and all fucking hell will break loose.

And people will look at each other asking why no-one did anything about this before.

But it will be too late.Don't forget the rental car with flight manuals in arabic in the trunk... those guys must have been doing some last minute cramming, huh?

Also the drills, the stand down, etc. etc.

Why is Bush STILL in power?

One day, when this whole thing is declassified, like Northwoods, we'll know the truth and by then the perpetrators will be dead.

[Planetary]

what really bugs me about the "pentagon attack was done by a missile" conspiracy....is then what happened to the people that were on the REAL plane that was supposed to have hit the pentagon?
where are they?
did aliens take them?

bermuda triangle ;)

[sam i am]

I agree, on the whole, I just think they are vulnerable to the possibility of being made pawns of. It would be quite easy for the Republicans to manipulate them.

Unlike wikipedia.... :rolleyes: :D

[steve-onpoint]

It raises a lot of questions, but it doesn't provide a conclusive refutation.

Yeah, I came across some info that had me raising some questions. I can't help but be affected by all this info.