9-11 conspiracy theories: do you believe them?

Do you believe 9-11 conspiracy theories?

  • Not at all, I'm not a retard.

    Votes: 48 64.0%
  • No, but I have a crazy friend who does.

    Votes: 8 10.7%
  • Of course! The Illuminati jew lizards are out to kill us all!

    Votes: 19 25.3%

  • Total voters
    75
No, of course not.








It was the Illuminati Jew Lizard Zombies. Don't you see??!


But Stiggy it cannot be!

They were teamed with the Illuminati Jew Retarded Squirrel Defence Squadron!

THey must have been acting for good!

D:
 
I blame the atheists. People who hate god also hate everything nice and therefor that proves they asploded the WTC towers with their god hating commercial airliners.
 
I blame the atheists. People who hate god also hate everything nice and therefor that proves they asploded the WTC towers with their god hating commercial airliners.

Yeah, they have no morals wahtsoever and will burn in hell for choosing not to serve my vicoius god.
 
The only thing that I have yet to see debunked/explained is the many extra "Put Options" (bets that a company's stock will fall) put on airline/boeing stocks the days before 9/11 (11x the amount of average on 9/10 for American Airlines) and various warnings that were passed around to politicians and whatnot.

All the other stuff is pretty silly.
 
You think if the US goverment wanted to fake a 757 crashing into which buildings they'd do it so a bunch of backyard nutters couldn't figure it out.
 
I giggled like a school girl at the Illuminati jew lizard bit
 
I think no but i voted yes because "jew lizards" made me giggle.
 
Must be great to be soooooooooo inteligent, and always right. If you have nothing of relevance to say in the topic, then don't post in it. Leave us 'obvious dumbasses' who are interested in conspiracies discuss it.
 
I'm gonna be honest and say I never believed any of the conspiracy theories related to any of the WTC buildings, but the Pentagon always raised questions for me, mainly because I've never seen it explained exactly what happened.

I still don't believe it, because I'm sure there's a good explanation, I just haven't seen it. Even browsing that debunking 9/11 site linked earlier in this thread...I couldn't find Pengtagon information :| I might be blind though.

Also...it doesn't make any sense for the US to attack the Pentagon, as per according to the theory. I'd still like to see the videos and such, just to see what happened.
 
pentagon_strike2.gif


Yeah, that's definitely a Boeing 757 jet airliner.

I live in the DC metro area, and I've talked to three people, one of which lives practically across the street from the pentagon and is a close friend, who watched a giant plane crash into the side of the building. I think I'm going to believe them.
 
pentagon_strike2.gif


Yeah, that's definitely a Boeing 757 jet airliner.

Ok, riddle me this: why on earth would they fake the Pentagon crash with a military missile in clear daylight with the risk of the hundreds of eyewitnesses seeing how in fact it was not a plane? Why not just use a plane? Do you really expect me to believe the US government first hijacked a plane, made this disappear (because: where did it go otherwise?) and then went through the effort and risk of firing a missile at the Pentagon when they could have used the plane they had already hijacked? These conspiracy nuts are obviously not masters of efficiency.
 
Ok, riddle me this: why on earth would they fake the Pentagon crash with a military missile in clear daylight with the risk of the hundreds of eyewitnesses seeing how in fact it was not a plane? Why not just use a plane? Do you really expect me to believe the US government first hijacked a plane, made this disappear (because: where did it go otherwise?) and then went through the effort and risk of firing a missile at the Pentagon when they could have used the plane they had already hijacked? These conspiracy nuts are obviously not masters of efficiency.
No... they are masters of awesome.
 
The damage would have been a lot more significant if it had been a 747, imo.
 
I think it would have been far more significant if it had been a military-grade ballistic missile. Missiles are not designed to create giant Hollywood-style fireballs - those do very little damage. A plane crash, on the other hand, would do such a thing. Compare the explosions caused by the Pentagon and WTC crashes, they're all enormous fireballs (caused by all the fuel in the planes) with a small amount of actual concussive damage.
 
The answer is simple.






















You've just got to find out what it is. D:
 
Ok, riddle me this: why on earth would they fake the Pentagon crash with a military missile in clear daylight with the risk of the hundreds of eyewitnesses seeing how in fact it was not a plane? Why not just use a plane? Do you really expect me to believe the US government first hijacked a plane, made this disappear (because: where did it go otherwise?) and then went through the effort and risk of firing a missile at the Pentagon when they could have used the plane they had already hijacked? These conspiracy nuts are obviously not masters of efficiency.

That's logical enough if you are convinced the origional conspiracey people were fed is the entire truth yes, but that doesn't cover the glaring inconsistencies. It was observed to be a large aircraft by police offers at the Citgo gas station so most likely it was a large aircraft of some kind yes, but you have to look at the circumstances surrounding the event.

1. The offical line of events about the flight path contradicts eye witness testimony from the Citgo gas station and the flight data recorder which was released under the freedom of information act.

2. The hit is precise to within a degree of the base of the building without scratching the lawn. Hani Hanjour couldn't even fly a cessna, yet he was able to hijack a highly sofisticated aircraft and then manage to be so ill prepared as to his plan that he decided to do a 270 degree bank and drop in the last few minutes to hit the recently renovated section of the building, that had just been reinforced, and was on the complete opposite side of where the top military brass were.

3. The plane was actually described as being vaporised by FEMA on impact by the jet fuel to explain the lack of substantial debris, yet how if huge titanium alloy engines mostley evaporated were they able to indentify the bodies?

4. There was secondary explosions at the pentagon after the plane impact which havn't been explained. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ_g1buWhAA

Those are all factual points, so that is why anyone should find it hard to believe that this was just a simple hijacker that couldn't even fly a Cessna properly on a highly improbable fluke run with a large jet.

and it's worth taking a look at the declassified US military document on Operation Northwoods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Point's to take notice of are..

The plans to down their own ship in the harbour and stage funerals for 'mock' victims.

The plan to stage a terror campaign in the US using Cuban refugees to insight Cuban invasion, sinking boatloads of people (real or simulated).

And a plan to use a plane full of students which gets swapped for a drone mid flight, the drone is then destroyed and blame placed on Cuba for shooting down the plane and killing the students.
 
Tyguy, don't you get it? There's evidence. Behold, the Illuminati, Jew Lizard:

 
That is actually the most amazing thing I have ever laid my eyes on.
 
Back
Top