-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
9/11 conspiracy theories, anyone?
- Thread starter MIMIC
- Start date
- Status
Hitokage said:
1) That is not a reflection; and 2) even if it WAS a reflection, it is being produced on the fuselage, and not the building....and it would be pretty hard for the building to reflect the sun while also being in a shadow.
That side of the building is NOT facing the sun.
ManaByte
Member
Mimic had better watch out for the Men in Black. He's discovered that 9/11 was just a massive government conspiracy to draw public attention away from the Grand Deception, which will also allow for MJ-12 to implement Alternative 2 when the Zeti Reticulian Greys and Draco Reptilians come to fight over their human "containers". Where are the giant rolleyes when you need them? 
MIMIC said:
A...
:: looks around nervously ::
SHADOW!
Christ, you people...Is it THAT hard to believe that about 20 lunatics who got politics mixed into their figurative Kool-Aid got on board 4 planes and decided to slam them into U.S. landmarks? It's pretty easy for me to believe, and I'm about as cynical as they come. Move on, there's nothing to see here.
Also, a postscript:
Stop hinging conspiracy theories on grainy, VHS-caliber footage of aircraft moving at arguably a few hundred miles per hour.
Spectral Glider
Member
I like how the government was supposedly so smart to pull the wool over everyone's eyes by faking the 9/11 attacks, yet they were too dumb to provide any credible links to Iraq or, at the very least, plant some WMD after they got in there.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
MIMIC said:
Sweet jesus man, you realise you linked to a site that said that this plane was carrying a missile and the genius that put the missile on the plane fired the missile 1/3 of a second before he drove the plane into the tower? What purpose did the missile and it's "POD" serve?
You realise that a fuel loaded airliner is in a sense already a missile right? Which is the brilliance of the plan in the first place. What possible purpose does strapping a missile to the Plane serve? AT ALL NO PURPOSE AT ALL AT ALL. Honestly, how much harder would that be to organise than just jacking a plane.
What is the conclusion to your theory anyway? That the government did it? That there was no plane? That the plane was remote controlled? Why did they need a "Missile Pod" strapped to its underbelly for any of these scenarios?
As for the reflection thing, High rise buildings all around would be spitting reflections in every direction, and buildings would be reflecting other reflections.
This is very reaching and I feel dumber from having read this thread.
Hitokage said:
So how do you explain the fact that this "reflected image" manages to remain with the fuselage even as it continues to travel?
Was this building following the plane or something?
One would think that you would AT SOME POINT move out of the line of projection of the reflection, but this does not happen in this situation.
Ok so the government bombed the building with a truck bomb and covered it up by saying a plane had landed into the Pentagon? The evidence of this is some missing tape and twisted peice of airplane metal that doesn't have burn marks?
Ok, so the government set the truck bomb up, secured a plane and its people, stored them or killed them. Faked the radar reports of a plane flying over the no-flight zones from multiple radar stations, faked all the 911 calls that came in from that very plane saying it had been hijacked. secured and brainwashed all the people involved with the 911 calls, radar stations, family, etc etc to make sure they say the right thing. Orchestrated a huge number of variables, either one going wrong, and doing it flawlessly in a matter of seconds.....
Don't you think it would have been easier to bypass all this and just fly a plane into it?
Ok, so the government set the truck bomb up, secured a plane and its people, stored them or killed them. Faked the radar reports of a plane flying over the no-flight zones from multiple radar stations, faked all the 911 calls that came in from that very plane saying it had been hijacked. secured and brainwashed all the people involved with the 911 calls, radar stations, family, etc etc to make sure they say the right thing. Orchestrated a huge number of variables, either one going wrong, and doing it flawlessly in a matter of seconds.....
Don't you think it would have been easier to bypass all this and just fly a plane into it?
Spectral Glider
Member
catfish said:
Maybe it was a contest to see how many passengers would blindly board a plane without noticing the strange missile pod on it. I guess, for the purposes of this thread, the answer is all of them.
MIMIC said:
So they decided to fly a plane into the building when they had a perfectly good missle pod in the first place?
Oh so maybe the missle pod broke. Then I guess the first plane's missle pod fucked up to
never mind it would look PRETTY SUSPICIOUS if a commericial airliner launched a damned missle over new york
MIMIC said:
Yes, two very tall buildings fell in New York, the Pentagon sustained heavy damage, and a field in Pennsylvania was the unlikely recipient of a commercial airliner.
The old maxim of "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," applies here. Nothing more complex than a few wackjobs hijacking some planes "happened."
MIMIC said:
WTC 7 was on fire, plus it suffered damage from falling debris from the towers. Even if the firefighters were able to save it, the structure would've inevitably been deemed unsafe and it would've had a wrecking ball taken to it if it didn't collapse under its own damage beforehand.
Cauliflower of Love
Banned
xsarien said:
In the video plane site, there's news footage of a big ol' black cloud emerging from where wtc 7 would be. Also wtc 6 stands between wtc7 and one of the towers. Yet it remained standing with less damage.
767 isn't too much different from the 757 in that the 767 also has a bulge in the fuselage between the wings, but what KIND of bulge depends on the specific 767 model.
On this plane the bulge is only to the sides (767-300):
On this plane the bulge is more 757-like (767-200):
On this plane the bulge is only to the sides (767-300):
On this plane the bulge is more 757-like (767-200):
muncheese said:
And there were buildings flanking the Twin Towers that also suffered zero or minimal damage. Debris exploding outward from the towers can fly in nearly any direction, skipping close buildings, hitting others, and vice versa.
This thread needs a solid injection of facts that aren't from conspiracy nut sites.
- Status