Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

CarltonDanks69

What are your controversial beliefs?

Recommended Posts

CarltonDanks69

Whether it be a conspiracy theory, a theological belief, or just an unpopular opinion?

Express them here!

 

I have a big one (and some of you will probably call me a psychopath for daring to have such an opinion lol) 

 

I believe 9/11 was orchestrated by some rogue elements within our government.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MadHammerThorsteen

To the above, I do not quite agree. While I don't think the government, or coordinated elements thereof, explicitly aided in the execution of the 9/11 attacks, I do think it was a much more organized and intelligent operation than it has thus far been described as in mainstream reporting, and that yes, the buildings themselves were compromised to some degree prior to the plane impacts.

 

My own "controversial" opinion is one that largely depends on who I find myself in the company of. I believe that transgenderism is both a neurological disorder and philosophical blunder. If you have a perfectly healthy and functioning female body, but feel like you should be a male, the body is not sick; the mind is sick. And by sick, I don't mean to imply either "perverted" or "unfit for society". There are many people fighting many different kinds and degrees of mental illness, mental disability, neurological disorders, etc... who are quite functional, healthy, and fit for society in practically every other facet of their lives. The fact that I believe this--and the fact that I refuse to use preferred pronouns--does not mean that I hate you or that I want to suppress you, nor most of all that I want to deny you your humanity. Quite the opposite. I give a damn. I want to see everyone happy and healthy and reconciled to themselves, and that's precisely why I refuse to tell you something I believe is a horrifying and deeply harmful misconception about who and what you are.

 

At least on the individual level, I care about the people I spend time to interact with. On the societal level, I can be more blunt about my disagreement because I believe there is a concurrent, yet separate ontological crisis being perpetrated by a class of deranged sophists (mostly in psychology/sociology) posing as intellectuals against a sane and rational philosophy of existence and what it means to be human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CarltonDanks69
26 minutes ago, MadHammerThorsteen said:

To the above, I do not quite agree. While I don't think the government, or coordinated elements thereof, explicitly aided in the execution of the 9/11 attacks, I do think it was a much more organized and intelligent operation than it has thus far been described as in mainstream reporting, and that yes, the buildings themselves were compromised to some degree prior to the plane impacts.

theres blatant evidence that we had some role in covering it up. Bush held off for as long as possible to start an official investigation into the events of that day. Even going as far as to asking for congress to hinder their investigation. All in all, it was such an evil day that was used as a front to start an illegal war with Afghanistan and Iraq. All for middle eastern dominance..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rtie

gg6dr16.png?2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CarltonDanks69
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, loyletomycapo said:

gg6dr16.png?2

you believe Michael Jackson faked his death to live in The Upside Down?

 

Interesting..

 

Edit: also, interesting signature lmao

the most corrupt administration in modern history

Edited by CarltonDanks69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rtie
12 minutes ago, CarltonDanks69 said:

Edit: also, interesting signature lmao

the most corrupt administration in modern history

jioHKef.jpg?2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Well this went about as well as expected. Any thread that starts with a 9/11 conspiracy theory is always good for a laugh, mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CarltonDanks69
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

Well this went about as well as expected. Any thread that starts with a 9/11 conspiracy theory is always good for a laugh, mind.

no discussing 9/11 theories here? is there any particular reason?

 

if you're actually looking to change your mind after you lock this thread, theres always a well researched documentary surrounding the events of that day. check it out if you want!

 

 

otherwise, ignore it and call me crazy for going against the grain

Edited by CarltonDanks69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Anyone who advertised YouTube documentaries as "well researched", especially with that cover image, I would argue doesn't really understand research.

 

As a general rule, 9/11 conspiracy theories haven't changed in nearly two decades. Fundamentally, they're all about fitting very questionable, usually nonexistent, evidence to preconceived hypotheses. People don't believe 9/11 conspiracy theories because there's an empirical evidentiary basis and they've formed an independent, rational opinion; people come in with a preconceived notion that something conspiratorial happened, and then gorge on the myriad of falsehoods, misrepresentations and leadingly phrased factoids that proponents present in lieu of a coherent alternative narrative.

 

It's not crazy to believe 9/11 conspiracy theories; though lots of people who believe 9/11 conspiracy theories are crazy. I get it; it's hard for people who only pay cursory attention to the events and facts to be misled. Testing the validity of sources and evidence is hard and time consuming. But people shouldn't think they're enlightened just because they contradict accepted narratives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CarltonDanks69
Posted (edited)

Literally judging a book by its cover...

 

So if theres any hard proof debunking the official story you'd still turn a blind eye huh? 

 

41 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

But people shouldn't think they're enlightened just because they contradict accepted narratives.

Its not about feeling "enlightened" its about not believing an obviously bullsh*t story. And turning a blind eye to blatant discrepancies doesnt mean to "debunk conpiracy nuts".

 

Also, why cant a documentary on YT be well researched? That makes no sense

Edited by CarltonDanks69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
28 minutes ago, CarltonDanks69 said:

So if theres any hard proof debunking the official story you'd still turn a blind eye huh? 

Are you telling me there's actual evidence in that YT video that hasn't been covered off in the myriad of conspiracy theories in the last 20 years? Then you should have no problem laying it out before us. After all, the burden of proof lays on you.

 

28 minutes ago, CarltonDanks69 said:

Its not about feeling "enlightened" its about not believing an obviously bullsh*t story. 

I can scarcely think of a story more believable than the ineptitude of the US federal government and the failure of the competitive intelligence model that manifested itself dozens of times before 9/11. People who allege a grand conspiracy, through lack of familiarity with both US geopolitical history, massively overestimate the ability and general competence of US institutions.

 

It has been analysed in forensic detail by intelligence professionals, to the point that it represents the cornerstone of just about any education in intelligence failure for those studying intelligence analysis literally the world over. 

 

If you're genuinely going to try and persuade me an Italian filmmaker with no academic or technical grounding in any relevant subject, no access to information above and beyond what is already in the public domain, and a history of presenting pseudoscience, woo and utter nonsense on a range of subjects also including the moon landings and homeopathic cures for cancer, has anything of note to contribute on the subject, you've got your work cut out.

 

28 minutes ago, CarltonDanks69 said:

And turning a blind eye to blatant discrepancies 

What discrepancies? As I've already said, the narrative if, and of the months and years leading up to, 9/11 have been publicly and forensically analysed in molecular detail. What discrepancies exist do so almost entirely in the verbal comments of individuals in the immediate and direct aftermath of 9/11; the rest are largely imagined or misinterpreted.

 

Typically, people who post supposedly factual content to YouTube above and beyond more critical sources do so because their commentary or statements don't stand up to scrutiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rtie

wtf do you even get out of this sivis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CarltonDanks69

I’ll pose a few simple questions that maybe the great Sivispacem can answer? Just a few head scratchers, maybe you non nut jobs can help me out? 
 

QUESTION: The Secret Service knew about the incoming plane for the last 30 minutes, was following on radar, had the means to shoot it down, and should have done so in order to protect the Capital, but they didn't. Why?

QUESTION: In regards to the exchange between Cheney and the "young man", can you suggest anything different from an order not to shoot down the plane as it was approaching Washington's protected airspace?

QUESTION: Given that, according to the Pentagon Building Performance Report, "the aircraft frame most certainly was destroyed before it had traveled a distance that approximately equaled the length of the aircraft (p. 40)", and that "it is highly unlikely that any significant portion of the fuselage could have retained structural integrity at this point in its travel (p. 40)", can you explain what caused the most perfectly round exit hole in the outer wall of the C-Ring?

QUESTION: Given that the maximum fluctuation between the two cameras would translate in a difference of 25 feet in the position of the plane, can you provide a valid explanation for the large discrepancy between the two corresponding frames (23:19)? Absent a valid explanation for this discrepancy, we must conclude that at least one of the two frames is the result of intentional manipulation, or "photoshopping".

 

QUESTION: Can you explain how most of an airplane weighing 100 tons could end up buried deep underground in a hole that closed itself up before the first responders arrived? (31:51)

QUESTION: Since the plane was carrying 8 to 10,000 gallons of fuel at the time of impact, can you explain why there is no plume of black smoke raising from the ground after the initial explosion? (34:45)

QUESTION: Since the plane is supposed to have hit the ground in one piece, can you explain how it was possible for debris to be found 6 to 8 miles from the crash site on a day when only a light breeze was blowing? (37:16)

QUESTION: Since they were only 20 minutes away from Washington and for almost 6 minutes the passengers had been unable to enter the cockpit, why didn't the hijackers continue flying towards the Capital? (43:25)

QUESTION: Even if they thought they couldn't make it to Washington, why didn't they try to crash the plane onto a small town nearby? Why crash the plane in an empty field where they knew they could not kill any more victims than those who were already on the plane with them? (43:30)

The "Sagging Trusses" Theory: Problem - 1. No proof of insulation "widely dislodged". 2. No proof of temperatures above 250ºC (480ºF) (1:10:58)

QUESTION: Can you provide any evidence that the fireproofing from the steel trusses was "widely dislodged" by the impact of the planes, which NIST has made a necessary condition for the collapses to be caused by fire? (1:14:48)

QUESTION: Can you provide any evidence that the temperatures in the Twin Towers were high enough, and lasted long enough, to seriously weaken steel in the areas where the initial collapses occurred? (1:14:51)

QUESTION: Can explain how a sagging truss weakened by heat could pull and eventually break apart the structure it is attached to with no external force being applied to it? (1:15:00)

QUESTION: Given that "the building section above came down essentially in freefall" (Source: NIST NCSTAR1 - p. 146); given that for freefall to occur no supporting structure must be present; and given that the falling sections did not have any extra energy to destroy the structure below, can you suggest anything different from some kind of demolition for the removal of the supporting structure which was necessary for near freefall speed to be achieved? (1:27:32)

 

INTERESTING FACTS: 1. Major elevators renovation. 2. Heavy equipment moved on empty floors. 3. Bomb sniffing dogs removed. 4. Unprecedented power down (first time in 30 years) (4:31)

Fuel in elevator shafts theory: 1. No regular elevators from top to bottom. (Diagram 1 | Diagram 2) 2. Personnel not cremated by "fireball". 3. Volumes not considered (15:41)

QUESTION: Given that after the initial explosion and the ensuing fires there wouldn't have been enough jet fuel left to pour down the elevator shafts in substantial quantities, can you explain the at least three separate explosions reported by multiple witnesses at the time of the first impact in the North Tower? (29:16)

QUESTION: In particular, can you explain the huge explosion reported by multiple witnesses in the basement of the North Tower moments before the impact of the plane? (29:31)

QUESTION: Can you explain what caused the huge explosion that literally devastated the lobby of the North Tower, according to multiple witnesses, about one hour after the impact of the plane and before the collapse of Tower Two? (29:40)

QUESTION: Can you explain what caused the big explosion reported by Mr. Jennings and Mr. Hess on the 8th floor of Building 7, before either tower had collapsed? (29:51)

QUESTION: Can you explain what caused the multiple explosions recorded by different camera crews including the BBC and CNN, after the towers had collapsed and before the collapse of Building 7? (30:00)

QUESTION: Can you explain how more than 100 witnesses, most of them firefighters and policemen, could have all "been mistaken" in reporting explosions at the WTC? (30:15)

QUESTION: Given that what we see is clearly not glass from a broken window but concrete and debris, can you explain what caused the squibs observed 30-40 floors below the level of collapse? (32:45)

QUESTION: Given that the falling, upper sections of the towers had no additional energy to destroy the healthy structure below, where did the energy to hurdle these large chunks of structure at such a distance from the towers come from? (37:39)

 

these are questions posed in the documentary 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baserape

giphy.gif

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spectre07
Posted (edited)

tenor.gif

Edited by trip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CarltonDanks69
1 minute ago, FearThoseWhoFearHim said:

tenor.gif

Damn you got me bro! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zello

I love Trump. Didn't vote for him but kinda wish I did. I dont agree with everything he does or on a lot of his positions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trip
Posted (edited)

In all honesty:

 

I think young kids should be allowed to fat shame their friends.   "Fatty fatty boombalatty" probably prevented tons of childhood obesity back in the day.

 

 

I'm pretty sure peanut allergies are mother nature's way of thinning the herd.  They didnt exist when I was a kid, but then again the population has more than doubled since I was a kid.

Edited by trip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jpm1

i believe that human kind salvation will pass by a degrowth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CarltonDanks69
49 minutes ago, Zello said:

I love Trump. Didn't vote for him but kinda wish I did. I dont agree with everything he does or on a lot of his positions. 

You mean his personality or his policies? 

36 minutes ago, trip said:

In all honesty:

 

I think young kids should be allowed to fat shame their friends.   "Fatty fatty boombalatty" probably prevented tons of childhood obesity back in the day.

 

 

I'm pretty sure peanut allergies are mother nature's way of thinning the herd.  They didnt exist when I was a kid, but then again the population has more than doubled since I was a kid.

Lmaooo 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zello
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, CarltonDanks69 said:

You mean his personality or his policies? 

 

Both

 

I love his personality and wish more politicians were like him. I disagree with some of his policies not all of them.

Edited by Zello

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Standard Deluxe 59
5 hours ago, Zello said:

I love Trump. 

I'm sort of surprised I'm not the only one. I've been riding the Trump train since Sep. 2015 and I ain't getting off anytime soon. Yeah he sticks his foot in his mouth every now and then but at least he comes off as more an everyday guy than a polished politician, and he's very blunt about things. 

Nonetheless come Nov 2020 I'll be donning my signed by Trump Jr. "Keep America Great" Trump 2020 hat and cast my vote in favor of him. Hopefully I can make it to a rally, he came to my city in March but I got stuck in the overflow lot which was where I was able to get his son to sign my hat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CarltonDanks69

so did anyone check out the documentary? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I'm not going to pick up all of these, because a) I'm limited in the number of times I can quote, b) I'm limited in the time I have, and c) several of the claims require presuppositions that aren't factually true.

 

First, let me make some general statements, with cited examples, around some of these claims.

As a general observation, the questions posed fall into the usual trap 9/11 conspiracy theorists attempt of presenting a Gish gallop of different theories which are often mutually exclusive rather than presenting a coherent "joined-up" counter narrative. This is usually done for the purposes of drowning anyone seeking to rebut you in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort, and it's fairly transparent as an approach. In this instance, the scattergun nature of the on-the-spot fallacies used actually weakens your position, as many of the implications of the questions either raise significant follow-on issues or point to different incompatible or mutually-exclusive hypotheses.

 

Some questions suggest foreknowledge, but "letting it happen".

Some questions suggest there were no aircraft at all.

Some questions suggest controlled demolition.

 

10 hours ago, CarltonDanks69 said:

QUESTION: Given that the maximum fluctuation between the two cameras would translate in a difference of 25 feet in the position of the plane...

QUESTION: Given that what we see is clearly not glass from a broken window but concrete and debris...

QUESTION: Given that the falling, upper sections of the towers had no additional energy to destroy the healthy structure below...

 

QUESTION: Since the plane is supposed to have hit the ground in one piece, can you explain how it was possible for debris to be found 6 to 8 miles from the crash site on a day when only a light breeze was blowing?

These all require unproven/undemonstrated suppositions to be assumed true. In the absence of evidence presented supporting these presumptions, the questions are basically meaningless.

There's a wider issue presented with a number of these above (specifically the latter two) in that they "read into" events more than than a rational, educated outside observer.

Essentially, they do exactly as I described above; take a preconceived theory, and then find "evidence" that can be presented as fitting it, although it often doesn't. 

There's effectively a complete abandonment of the scientific method here; no effort is made to transparently test evidence and from that draw conclusions and anomalies and inconsistencies introduced into the narrative as requisite parts of the theories are either glossed over or completely ignored.

 

The latter of these is particularly telling from my perspective. The notion that debris from Flight 93 was found 6-8 miles from the crash site is a falsehood that has been introduced to the narrative expressly by conspiracy theorists. It first got perpetuated by David Griffin and was then picked up by Alex Jones, but no part of the official narrative has ever contained this statement and no empirical evidence has ever been presented that debris from 93 was ever discovered outside of the crash zone (which, FWIW, is pretty much exactly what you'd expect from a high speed flight into terrain in terms of size, dispersal and fragmentation).

 

I've often seen conspiracy proponents post images of low-speed landing or takeoff crashes as their "examples" of how they expect 93 to look. I find the photographs of the Air New Zealand flight that crashed into Mt Erebus at high speed offer a pretty compelling counter example:

 

Greg-45.jpg

 

The contrast with the snow makes the wreckage easier to determine than the F93 photos, and the New Zealand flight hit at a much shallower angle.

 

10 hours ago, CarltonDanks69 said:

QUESTION: Since they were only 20 minutes away from Washington...why didn't the hijackers continue flying towards the Capital?

QUESTION: Even if they thought they couldn't make it to Washington, why didn't they try to crash the plane onto a small town nearby?

These questions are a perfect example of the flaws I've highlighted above. The transcripts of the voice recordings of Flight 93 are public record; combined with the facts of pre-9/11 air travel (IE thin cockpit doors without or with only very weak lockouts) then dispelling these assertions isn't very difficult.

Instead, the author seeks to ignore evidence that contradicts his narrative (IE the entire CVR transcript) and instead focuses on "just asking questions"- another fallacious debating tactic designed to move the burden of proof from the person making the unreferenced and unsupported claims to their detractors. 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, CarltonDanks69 said:

QUESTION: The Secret Service knew about the incoming plane for the last 30 minutes, was following on radar, had the means to shoot it down, and should have done so in order to protect the Capital, but they didn't. Why?

The most fundamental reason here would be "because the Secret Service lack any authority to dictate the shootings down or otherwise of a civilian airliner", but there's actually a myriad of other factors at play, including;

 

1) limitations placed on NORAD in performing supersonic interceptions over the US mainland;

2) that the rules of engagement did not account for a situation such as this;

3) the disabling of the transponders on the aircraft effectively turning them into ambiguous dots in and amongst literally thousands of other radar returns.

 

10 hours ago, CarltonDanks69 said:

QUESTION: In regards to the exchange between Cheney and the "young man", can you suggest anything different from an order not to shoot down the plane as it was approaching Washington's protected airspace?

It would be easier to point to the fact that Cheney as VP most likely wouldn't have authority to make this call, as depending on the circumstances authorisation would have to come from within the defence hierarchy or from the president himself.

Therefore, I don't need to provide any alternative rationale behind the conversation; not that I would anyway, because the onus would be on you to explain your reasoning for reaching this conclusion, not for me to provide alternative hypotheses.

 

10 hours ago, CarltonDanks69 said:

QUESTION: Given that, according to the Pentagon Building Performance Report, "the aircraft frame most certainly was destroyed before it had traveled a distance that approximately equaled the length of the aircraft (p. 40)", and that "it is highly unlikely that any significant portion of the fuselage could have retained structural integrity at this point in its travel (p. 40)", can you explain what caused the most perfectly round exit hole in the outer wall of the C-Ring?

The "aircraft frame" relates only to the airframe components (IE wings, fuselage, tailplane) and not any of the more substantial and robust artefacts, such as the ~six tonnes of titanium and nickel alloy suspended beneath each wing.

Even ignoring the questionable language used to describe what is really just "a roundish hole", there's no contradiction between the quote cited and the damage observed, because these quotes relate only to airframe components.

 

 

I'm running short of time, so let me just pick up on one more (or really a theme of several) for now:

 

10 hours ago, CarltonDanks69 said:

QUESTION: Can you explain what caused the huge explosion 

QUESTION: Can you explain what caused the big explosion 

QUESTION: Can you explain what caused the multiple explosions

QUESTION: Can you explain how more than 100 witnesses...reporting explosions at the WTC

There are several things wrong with this narrative:

 

1) External witnesses are incredibly unreliable, as has been proven across numerous other tragic events. Therefore, eyewitness evidence is often amongst the last things investigators look at.

2) People commonly confuse conflagration- which is what is present in most of the videos- with deflagration or detonation, which isn't. An explosion with the required brisance and detonation wave force to conduct controlled demolition type activity (which is the inference here) does not arise from fire, or even from low-order (IE subsonic) explosions. An expanding ball of vaporised high-temperature aviation fuel hitting exposed oxygen creates what most people would describe as an "explosion", but it's a long way away from a detonation event in terms of the energy released. The main risk is through temperature, rather than blast wave.

3) A large explosion runs counter to a controlled demolition narrative; controlled demolition uses very small but high brisance/high detonation velocity explosives placed at tactical locations, that produce almost exactly the inverse of what was described by witnesses or recorded on camera (a very powerful blast wave with near-zero "visible" artefacts of an explosion. 

 

 

Tell you what,  next time you pick three "core" questions you have rather than me responding to thirty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CarltonDanks69
Posted (edited)

So you’re basically overlooking the fact that the only pentagon video released to the public has been purposely manipulated with who now? 
and you’re overlooking the fact that the official commission had confirmed that 95% of “flight 93” was actually excavated from that 10ft deep hole? A whole entire commercial airliner? And you’re overlooking the fact that all 3 WTC towers that fell that day unprecedentedly did so at close to or free fall speed? And you’re overlooking the mineta testimony that was left out of the commission because it didn’t line up with the official narrative? Okay I guess. 
 

conveniently, external witnesses that go against the grain are “unreliable” so f*ck those firefighters and policemen That are still dying to this day that heard and witnessed the explosions! They’re a bunch of crazy loonies right!? 

4 hours ago, sivispacem said:

the disabling of the transponders on the aircraft effectively turning them into ambiguous dots in and amongst literally thousands of other radar returns.

Lol is this why you don’t want to watch the “crazy” YT documentary? They clearly go into this. The turning off the transponders barely hindered ATCs ability to find and identify them. They were identified within MINUTES. 

4 hours ago, sivispacem said:

limitations placed on NORAD in performing supersonic interceptions over the US mainland;

Which begs the question why so few aircrafts were left to defend the ENTIRE NORTH EASTERN UNITED STATES that day? Was it the convenient exercises that the terrorists wouldn’t have any knowledge about? 
 

 

also dude, google and a little research is your friend. It’s PROVEN that debris was found in Indian lake and even 6 miles away from the crash site 

 

 

 

Anyways, it’s been great discussing! We both leave with something new to talk about in the future! Maybe one day you’ll watch the documentary if you really wish to challenge all the points made within it. 
 

EDIT: one more thing, it’s extremely disrespectful to just throw away all eyewitness accounts that don’t line up with the story we were given. Especially for that of William Rodriguez, a hero of that day who is responsible for saving numerous lives. Him and many others report an explosion in the basement of the north tower just before the plane struck. And since he has worked in the towers for over 20 yrs, it would be easy for him to recognize whether an explosion originated from the top of bottom of the towers. To dismiss all of those eyewitnesses including him just because they don’t tell you what you wanna hear doesn’t mean you’ve “debunked” anything. It just shows your apathy towards them and your willingness to stick your fingers in your ears and block them out like some proverbial child who doesn’t want to face the music. Their accounts describe a much more different story of 9/11 then the one we’ve been given by the commission that was set up to fail. 

Edited by CarltonDanks69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
10 minutes ago, CarltonDanks69 said:

So you’re basically overlooking the fact that the only pentagon video released to the public has been purposely manipulated with who now? 

Firstly, you're introducing arguments here that aren't in your initial response. I have only responded to what you've set out here so its disingenuous to claim I've "overlooked" things you've not mentioned at all.

 

As far as I can see, there's absolutely no evidentiary basis for your claims the Pentagon video was purposefully manipulated. The onus is on you to provide evidence and explanation to that end, which you haven't done. We can discuss the merits of that evidentiary basis once you provide it, until then you're just making an entirely baseless claim.

 

17 minutes ago, CarltonDanks69 said:

and you’re overlooking the fact that the official commission had confirmed that 95% of “flight 93” was actually excavated from that 10ft deep hole? A whole entire commercial airliner? 

I'm not overlooking what isn't surprising. Dependent on the angle of impact and ground conditions, it's not uncommon for significant quantities of aircraft involved in crashes to be buried fairly deep underground. The fact that this is portrayed as an anomaly does little more than demonstrate the lack of fundamental understanding on the part of people making these claims.

 

21 minutes ago, CarltonDanks69 said:

And you’re overlooking the fact that all 3 WTC towers that fell that day unprecedentedly did so at close to or free fall speed? 

Again, this wasn't referenced in your initial post; it's also an unevidenced assumption with no empirical data supporting it. The mechanisms used by so-called "truthers" to estimate the fall speed based on isolated snapshots of video that don't show the full building are self-evidently unscientific and misleading.

 

26 minutes ago, CarltonDanks69 said:

Conveniently, external witnesses that go against the grain are “unreliable” 

No, all eyewitnesses regardless of their opinions are considered unreliable. They have pretty much always been treated as such, especially after TWA800.

 

I'll pick up the rest later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CarltonDanks69
19 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

Again, this wasn't referenced in your initial post; it's also an unevidenced assumption with no empirical data supporting it. The mechanisms used by so-called "truthers" to estimate the fall speed based on isolated snapshots of video that don't show the full building are self-evidently unscientific and misleading.

Well one would think that when debating 9/11, you’d have at least some prior knowledge of the events. Look up the NIST report. They confirmed this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evil empire

I'm a die-hard socialist and atheist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coleco

I kinda like the XBox One UI.

 

 

ducks and covers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smith John

Extinction Rebelion brush their teeth more than twice a month.

15 hours ago, trip said:

I think young kids should be allowed to fat shame their friends.   "Fatty fatty boombalatty" probably prevented tons of childhood obesity back in the day.

Also ^this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.