Conspiracy Theories

#1
Curious to see what arrsers think of these theories, some are interesting reading and designed to make your own mind up I mean we all saw the planes hit the towers on sept 11 but there is some open questions to be answered on other events:
There was a good proram on TV recently about UK and US goverments putting out the 'official' line about some stories and later, admiting it was all b*****ks

Namely:
There is considerable evidence that what hit the Pentagon was NOT AA-77.
The Pentagon's security cameras show some aircraft being shattered by a missile automatically from one of the defense batteries that surround the Pentagon. The Pentagon admits the aircraft came in low. It did so to get under the radar that controls those missles. Fight 77 had a wing span of 129 feet. It CANNOT fly that low and that fast due to the ground effect cushion that is formed. 757's have to stall, that is quit flying, in order fly that close to the ground. Cruise Missles and remotely piloted vehicles such as the US's Global Hawks, however , can.

And

http://no757.batcave.net/

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

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/rumors.asp
 
#2
emptyeye said:
Curious to see what arrsers think of these theories, some are interesting reading and designed to make your own mind up I mean we all saw the planes hit the towers on sept 11 but there is some open questions to be answered on other events:
There was a good proram on TV recently about UK and US goverments putting out the 'official' line about some stories and later, admiting it was all b*****ks

Namely:
There is considerable evidence that what hit the Pentagon was NOT AA-77.
The Pentagon's security cameras show some aircraft being shattered by a missile automatically from one of the defense batteries that surround the Pentagon. The Pentagon admits the aircraft came in low. It did so to get under the radar that controls those missles. Fight 77 had a wing span of 129 feet. It CANNOT fly that low and that fast due to the ground effect cushion that is formed. 757's have to stall, that is quit flying, in order fly that close to the ground. Cruise Missles and remotely piloted vehicles such as the US's Global Hawks, however , can.

And

http://no757.batcave.net/

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

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/rumors.asp
AND

http://www.flight93crash.com/second-plane-at-flight93-crash-site.htm
 
#3
So flight AA 77 just quietly landed somewhere else and the small number of passengers and crew were taken away by the CIA to be flown to the moon on a space ship called Capricorn 1.
 
#4
Emptyeye,
If you had actually read the Snopes link you posted you would have realised that this is one of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories ever created! At worst this conspiracy theory was created by someone with a tenuous grasp on reality and at best by someone with a feeble understanding of balistics and explosives.
 
#5
Birdie_Numnums said:
So flight AA 77 just quietly landed somewhere else and the small number of passengers and crew were taken away by the CIA to be flown to the moon on a space ship called Capricorn 1.

Didnt say that, in fact not saying anything. Just asking
 
#6
emptyeye said:
Birdie_Numnums said:
So flight AA 77 just quietly landed somewhere else and the small number of passengers and crew were taken away by the CIA to be flown to the moon on a space ship called Capricorn 1.

Didnt say that, in fact not saying anything. Just asking
Sorry but that's not good enough. Don't be a troll. You must have an opinion so let's hear it!
 
#7
emptyeye said:
Namely:
There is considerable evidence that what hit the Pentagon was NOT AA-77.
The Pentagon's security cameras show some aircraft being shattered by a missile automatically from one of the defense batteries that surround the Pentagon. The Pentagon admits the aircraft came in low. It did so to get under the radar that controls those missles. Fight 77 had a wing span of 129 feet. It CANNOT fly that low and that fast due to the ground effect cushion that is formed. 757's have to stall, that is quit flying, in order fly that close to the ground. Cruise Missles and remotely piloted vehicles such as the US's Global Hawks, however , can.
Yes you were - you were claiming that there was considerable evidence! There is NO evidence whatsoever for this Tinfoil hat theory!!!!!!
 
#8
Actually, due to bored lunch time a while ago and not having discovered arrse yet, i did a trawl about this when someone emailed me about it. Having looked at some of the evidence it would seem to stack up and all be credible right to the point of that part of the pentagon being empty etc, however, would even the americans be dumb enough to show how fragile their main building is, would they not just "crash" somewheer else! maybe into a forest with big fireballs, or an empty building or something. Something slightly less expensive!
 
#9
Gonzo said:
emptyeye said:
Namely:
There is considerable evidence that what hit the Pentagon was NOT AA-77.
The Pentagon's security cameras show some aircraft being shattered by a missile automatically from one of the defense batteries that surround the Pentagon. The Pentagon admits the aircraft came in low. It did so to get under the radar that controls those missles. Fight 77 had a wing span of 129 feet. It CANNOT fly that low and that fast due to the ground effect cushion that is formed. 757's have to stall, that is quit flying, in order fly that close to the ground. Cruise Missles and remotely piloted vehicles such as the US's Global Hawks, however , can.
Yes you were - you were claiming that there was considerable evidence! There is NO evidence whatsoever for this Tinfoil hat theory!!!!!!
Well in fact it was just a copy and paste, and set as an example, but I HAVE to ask, just where is that FECKING huge plane?
 
#10
Well what's more likely:

A. That it was all a conspiracy theory,

or,

B. It was a coincidence that that part of the Pentagon was "relatively" empty (people still died).

Not a tricky one in my mind!
 
#11
Gonzo said:
Well what's more likely:

A. That it was all a conspiracy theory,

or,

B. It was a coincidence that that part of the Pentagon was "relatively" empty (people still died).

Not a tricky one in my mind!
Yes, for those who died, its bang out of order and is bloody awful, but, if anyone can show me how a VERY big plane can just disintegrate when around the crash site structures the plane was meant to hit, still survive.
Too many things to ask to be fair
 
#12
emptyeye said:
Gonzo said:
Well what's more likely:

A. That it was all a conspiracy theory,

or,

B. It was a coincidence that that part of the Pentagon was "relatively" empty (people still died).

Not a tricky one in my mind!
Yes, for those who died, its bang out of order and is bloody awful, but, if anyone can show me how a VERY big plane can just disintegrate when around the crash site structures the plane was meant to hit, still survive.
Too many things to ask to be fair
If Black Box flight recorders quite often fail to survive, how do think thin alumunium is going to fare in temperatures of thousands of degrees?
 
#13
emptyeye said:
Gonzo said:
emptyeye said:
Well in fact it was just a copy and paste, and set as an example, but I HAVE to ask, just where is that FECKING huge plane?
This theory can be shot out of the water quite simply:

1. Big aluminium planes tend to disintegrate when hitting large lumps of concrete.
2. You will also find that the harder bits of it (engines, undercarriage etc) were found right at the core of the building five rings in.
3. The hole in the side of the Pentagon started big and got progressively smaller.
4. There were scorch marks on the outside of the building caused by the burning of the fuel.
5. There is no missile that can provide a fuel air explosion on impact and then penetrate five layers of concrete walls!

There would have had to been three attacks to create the damage of a plane strike:

Firstly hit the side with a Napalm BOMB (have to be prety accurate!)
Secondly hit with a missile that expodes on impact.
and lastly hit with a missile that penetrates several concrete walls and DOESN'T explode!

Don't you think it would have been easier and more likely to just hit the building with a big plane.
 
#14
I organised a surprise party for my girlfriend and invited 15 of her mates along, each one had the full opsec briefing and sworn to secrecy. No-one wanted to give the game away.....

I had three breaches before H-hour (threw enough smoke and created a big enough diversion for bird not to twig) even with a small grp and no reason to blow the whistle.

Now - if I can't keep a party secret how could anyone hope to keep this secret - it's a fecking plane........

Airman Bloggs - "what's that plane doing over there Sgt, and why are those guys with dark glasses loading those civilians on truck?"

SGT Clavinsky "Son - it's a matter of national security and you didn't see anything, at all. - Promise you won't get lashed up and tell anyone"

Airman Bloggs "Oh if' it's IMPORTANT I won't tell anyone, ever....."

Secrets always come out because people can't keep quiet.
 
#17
Yes, it's all very well trying to introduce logic and thus destroy the poorly founded urban rumour but what about the aliens and the **** probes Eh?
 
#18
It never ceases to amaze me how supposedly intelligent people blindly believe such utter guff time after time, without ever bothering to query the events or even check up on a few "facts". Why do people, when faced with options of either a plausible explanation or an unlikely illogical leap from reason, pick the later every time? No wonder conmen do such a roaring trade the world over.
 
#19
The point is that there are VERY many questions concerning 11.09.01 that defy physics and logical explanation. One of the very important questions remains: how could three steel-frame buildings collapse from fire? It has to be remembered that there are thousands of other buildings dotted around the world built on exactly the same principle, so architects and engineers from many nations are understandably worried about things. Don't forget, these are the ONLY steel-frame buildings EVER to collapse in this way. None before and none since.
There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that they were brought down with explosives, but the authorities seem very reluctant to provide any satisfactory explanation of how it happened.
At the Pentagon too, there are may things still unexplained. Not the least being: why fly around almost in a complete circle and slam into the back (from the flight direction) of the building, when a much easier approach would have been straight in from the river?
Questions, questions and no satisfactory answers.

MsG
 
#20
Oh not you aswell. For fecks sake, anyone with a D grade in GCSE physics will be able to find out what the melting point of steel is. Then work out how hot a couple of tons of aviation fuel burns at in an enclosed environment and you've got your answer! Why don't you actually look at the facts from real scientists who know what they're talking about rather than blindly believeing the shite that is spouted on these crank websites!

Edited to add: where is this overwhelming evidence that they were brought down by explosives?!!! If your idea of evidence is: some crackpot says it true (with no grounding in the laws of physics) then it must be true, then you have lost the plot my friend.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top