Connections Puzzle #328 Sat 4 May
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Who are the enemies?
Quite a few weeks ago, after watching a few films which certainly gave a distinctly different view on the 911atrocity in New York I was so incensed by the ramifications that I wrote to my MP, the BBC and 18 newspapers, both dailies and weekliesdetailing my concerns and offering them copies of they hadn't seen them.
I thought the views expressed on the films were completely water-tight and defenceless, but then who am I? I wanted them seen by those in the know and whose opinions were worth listening to.
So far I haven't had one reply.
Spooky
I thought the views expressed on the films were completely water-tight and defenceless, but then who am I? I wanted them seen by those in the know and whose opinions were worth listening to.
So far I haven't had one reply.
Spooky
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Garamond. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Looks like the conspiracy peddlars have snared another one! All the so called anomolies have been explain in nauseating detail time and again and still there are people who choose to believe some ill informed ramblings of the conspiracy loonies.
Yeah we're all so dumb it's a conspiracy to enslave the world by GWB I suppose. So how did they arrange Bali? Madrid? London? I suppose the bomb in 1993 was a test mine was it?
All those demolition guys planting explosives in strategic points in the 2 towers, kept quiet did they? Perhaps the CIA executed them. All the passengers where fictitious with fictitious mourning families where they? I could go on, there are so many holes, hardly "incontravertable!
What's your view on the Titanic? Diana? Mood landings?
Yeah we're all so dumb it's a conspiracy to enslave the world by GWB I suppose. So how did they arrange Bali? Madrid? London? I suppose the bomb in 1993 was a test mine was it?
All those demolition guys planting explosives in strategic points in the 2 towers, kept quiet did they? Perhaps the CIA executed them. All the passengers where fictitious with fictitious mourning families where they? I could go on, there are so many holes, hardly "incontravertable!
What's your view on the Titanic? Diana? Mood landings?
"There's something even more dangerous than terrorits and that's a closed mind"
There certainly is Garamount!
So we've only got an open mind if we sign up to you fairy tale view have we. All opinions are valid as long as they agree with you eh? right oh! Now who mentioned a certain Mr Hitler above?
Tell you what look up Irony! oh and petard !
There certainly is Garamount!
So we've only got an open mind if we sign up to you fairy tale view have we. All opinions are valid as long as they agree with you eh? right oh! Now who mentioned a certain Mr Hitler above?
Tell you what look up Irony! oh and petard !
The old 11/9 conspiracy again, eh?
Just one question, then - how else do you expect a building like that to collapse?
To tilt over like a falling tree?
Controlled demolition removes the main structural supports in strategic places causing the building to collapse in a .... well, controlled way.
If you would care to explain how you think the WTC should have collapsed, other than pancaking downwards on itself, then please go ahead and elaborate.
Just because it looks like a controlled demolition, doesn't mean it is.
Next.... radio controlled aircraft (this was in "the film", right?)
This is true. Around 20 years ago, in an attempt to demonstrate a new aviation fuel that 'gelled' upon impact -(to reduce vapour explosions) - a decommisioned airliner was crash-landed to demonstrate the efficacy of the new fuel. The airline industry was unimpressed, and, despite some remarkable measured results, the superficial fireball put investors off and the project was shelved.
However....., stick this footage amidst a load of tosh about conspiracy and 11/9, call it 'secret experiment', and you have mugs like you fooled for life.
Just one question, then - how else do you expect a building like that to collapse?
To tilt over like a falling tree?
Controlled demolition removes the main structural supports in strategic places causing the building to collapse in a .... well, controlled way.
If you would care to explain how you think the WTC should have collapsed, other than pancaking downwards on itself, then please go ahead and elaborate.
Just because it looks like a controlled demolition, doesn't mean it is.
Next.... radio controlled aircraft (this was in "the film", right?)
This is true. Around 20 years ago, in an attempt to demonstrate a new aviation fuel that 'gelled' upon impact -(to reduce vapour explosions) - a decommisioned airliner was crash-landed to demonstrate the efficacy of the new fuel. The airline industry was unimpressed, and, despite some remarkable measured results, the superficial fireball put investors off and the project was shelved.
However....., stick this footage amidst a load of tosh about conspiracy and 11/9, call it 'secret experiment', and you have mugs like you fooled for life.
I have to say, I was a complete skeptic about all these conspiracy theories...then I saw the 5 frames of film which show the airplane striking the Pentagon.
Makes your blood run cold...because...there's no flipping plane in the shot.
Furthermore, there was absolutely no wreckage on the site. According to official sources, aviation fuel incinerarted the fuselage...but the documentary I watched proved that in similar high speed crashes, this simply doesn't happen.
Lastly, the hole in the Pentagon was completely the wrong shape...there was no evidence of damage caused by the engines - neither of them.
Like I say...I'm a cynic and I think most conspiracy theories are nonsense...but like when you see a good magic trick - it's hard to explain away what looks impossible.
Makes your blood run cold...because...there's no flipping plane in the shot.
Furthermore, there was absolutely no wreckage on the site. According to official sources, aviation fuel incinerarted the fuselage...but the documentary I watched proved that in similar high speed crashes, this simply doesn't happen.
Lastly, the hole in the Pentagon was completely the wrong shape...there was no evidence of damage caused by the engines - neither of them.
Like I say...I'm a cynic and I think most conspiracy theories are nonsense...but like when you see a good magic trick - it's hard to explain away what looks impossible.
Plenty of sites debunking the conspiracy theorists version of events. Occams Razor and logic should tell you that for a conspiracy this vast, too many people would have to be in the loop, some of which would have come out now with some believable verifiable evidence.
I have seen all the films used to support the conspiracy theories, and dont have a lot of time for any of them.
SP1814, you talked specifically about the Pentagon strike. Have you seen this webpage, which goes into some detail about the nature of the hole and the wreckage?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defens e/1227842.html?page=6&c=y
I have seen all the films used to support the conspiracy theories, and dont have a lot of time for any of them.
SP1814, you talked specifically about the Pentagon strike. Have you seen this webpage, which goes into some detail about the nature of the hole and the wreckage?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defens e/1227842.html?page=6&c=y
I too have seen some of these films and I thought that most of what they are saying is a load of rot. There was a film about WTC 7 being demolished, so what if it was, it was 7 or 8 hours after the two towers had collapsed, WTC 7 was on fire, seriously damaged after all that had been going on next to it and if it was safer to have a controlled demolition than just waiting for it to fall then why not. It doesn't mean that WTC 1and 2 were demolished! There was also a video of a fireman saying that there was a bomb in the WTC. This was not long after the plane had hit and there must have been so much confusion. If you had been in one of the towers, heard the explosion and got out without seeing the plane then you probably would have thought it was a bomb seeing as the WTC was bombed a few years earlier. It only takes one remark to someone when you get out on the street - there's a bomb - for the rumours to start spreading. There was also a video saying that Flight 93 had landing in Ohio and not crashed in Pennsylvania. Again, can you imagine the confusion on that day? It only takes one person to get their facts wrong for everyone to start shouting their heads off about a conspiracy.
I'm sure the people 'in the know' have also seen the films to which you refer - maybe they haven't replied because they know there's no point - you have your point of view, they have theirs, and would a letter from your MP convince you that there wasn't a conspiracy? Probably not.
I'm sure the people 'in the know' have also seen the films to which you refer - maybe they haven't replied because they know there's no point - you have your point of view, they have theirs, and would a letter from your MP convince you that there wasn't a conspiracy? Probably not.
I took the atrocities of 9/11 at face value at the time. Then I saw a programme about conspiracy theories and my view changed. Then I saw a programme explaining away all the conspiracy theories ..so my view changed again! It really depends on two things: - Which programme you have seen and what you personally chose to believe, if you have seen both!
These videos are about as much factual use as a Micheal Moore ''doc'', ok one question for all the people who believe these DVD's, right, If GWB could set up this MASSIVE plan , fly remote control plains into a explosive packet building (why not just lie and say there was a bomb in the base?? easier!), missile the pentigon etc etc then how come he couldn't stop this bloke putting it all on dvd!!! The fact that the dvd exists is proof that they are rubbish.
Garamond, I don't mean this in a combative way, but you're accusing some people here of being closed-minded... when that's exactly how YOU'RE sounding, to me at any rate, in your implacable belief that the films gave the true story. I should say that I haven't seen the films you mention so offer no comment on them. I do however agree with a previous poster that a plethora of conspiracy theories follows within 2 to 5 years of almost every major world event. I have no doubt that governments get up to all sorts of underhand stuff behind our backs, but why would they stage something like this? Did the films offer any suggestions for motives?
I'm sure the scenarios they painted seemed as convincing to you as you say - in the same way that the idea they're terrorist acts is as compelling to the rest of us. Has it not occured to you that a fake conspiracy theory can be as convincingly faked as you think the "real" explanation is?
I'm sure the scenarios they painted seemed as convincing to you as you say - in the same way that the idea they're terrorist acts is as compelling to the rest of us. Has it not occured to you that a fake conspiracy theory can be as convincingly faked as you think the "real" explanation is?
