(09-15-2017, 07:58 AM)Aceymandias Wrote: I recommend that you read Mak's post above.


Why would you bother spending 6 months training to be a pilot if you were just going to bomb the buildings? Seems like a lot of hassle.

Not sure, I'm not a terrorist Incase they missed?

The point in making though is all these conspiracy theorists point to controlled explosions, that's fine but why is it automatically the American gvt who are blamed for this and not the folk flying planes into buildings?

(09-15-2017, 07:56 AM)Shteve Wrote: See if these terrorists did all of these things they are apparently supposed to have done they are fucking incredibly clever people, it's just a mystery that they haven't done anything even more catastrophic.

Think you're falling into the white = smart, brown = stupid trap. You find it easy to accept that a bunch of white men organised this massive conspiracy, covering all their tracks, rigged 4 buildings with explosives unnoticed, doctored live footage of planes flying into buildings etc etc. Yet you can't imagine a bunch of brown folk managed to sneak knives on a plane to hijack it midair, convince everyone on board they were landing at an airport then smash them into really tall buildings.

(09-15-2017, 08:05 AM)Roger H. Sterling Wrote: Think you're falling into the white = smart, brown = stupid trap. You find it easy to accept that a bunch of white men organised this massive conspiracy, covering all their tracks, rigged 4 buildings with explosives unnoticed, doctored live footage of planes flying into buildings etc etc.  Yet you can't imagine a bunch of brown folk managed to sneak knives on a plane to hijack it midair, convince everyone on board they were landing at an airport then smash them into really tall buildings.

I think so too.

(09-15-2017, 07:47 AM)Shteve Wrote: You have your opinion, I have mine, you don't know all the ins and outs and neither do I.

Just one of those things that we'll need to live with mate.

You do realise that the pilots weren't trying to land the planes carefully onto these huge buildings right? They just wanted to plough through them. I don't think pinpoint accuracy is necessary.

It's the difference between parking a car and crashing a car. Even a shit driver can do the latter.

Would be ok with a hijacked plane crashing into Lewis' face tbh.

(09-15-2017, 08:12 AM)Aceymandias Wrote: Would be ok with a hijacked plane crashing into Lewis' face tbh.

So would I as long as they'd managed to infiltrate and take over the sky's above the USA, then I'd say fair play, you deserve it.

(09-15-2017, 08:18 AM)Shteve Wrote: So would I as long as they'd managed to infiltrate and take over the sky's above the USA, then I'd say fair play, you deserve it.

Do you genuinely think it's beyond the realms of possibility that some people hijacked 3 planes and forced the pilots to do what they wanted?

(09-15-2017, 08:27 AM)Morph Wrote: Do you genuinely think it's beyond the realms of possibility that some people hijacked 3 planes and forced the pilots to do what they wanted?

Especially 16 years ago when airport security wasn't what it was nowadays

(09-15-2017, 08:27 AM)Morph Wrote: Do you genuinely think it's beyond the realms of possibility that some people hijacked 3 planes and forced the pilots to do what they wanted?

Yes, I do not believe for one second a pilot would fly a plane in to the world trade centre or the pentagon with or without a gun at his head.

Flying a plane = "taking over the skies".

(09-15-2017, 08:31 AM)Aceymandias Wrote: Flying a plane = "taking over the skies".

Four hijacked planes in the sky, seemingly able to do what they want and crash in to whatever target they wish, or is that too sensationalist for you? Were they just leisurely flying a plane.

(09-15-2017, 08:30 AM)Groot Wrote: Especially 16 years ago when airport security wasn't what it was nowadays

Correct. Security was nowhere near as strict. You could ask to be shown the cockpit in mid-flight in those days and the door wasn't locked.

Getting on a flight with box cutters would be relatively easy too.

(09-15-2017, 08:39 AM)Steven Toast Wrote: Correct. Security was nowhere near as strict. You could ask to be shown the cockpit in mid-flight in those days and the door wasn't locked.

Getting on a flight with box cutters would be relatively easy too.

Remember that from when I was wee. Changed times.

(09-15-2017, 08:18 AM)Shteve Wrote: So would I as long as they'd managed to infiltrate and take over the sky's above the USA, then I'd say fair play, you deserve it.

What do you mean infiltrate and take over the sky's above the USA? Believe it or not, in 2001, brown people were allowed to fly on planes alongside white people without too much suspicion. They were also legally allowed to board with small pocket knives. Hijackings weren't that uncommon then, and almost all of them were about taking hostages and having demands met. Nobody anticipated they'd use the planes as projectiles.

The terrorists planned the attacks to happen simultaneously so that the USA had no time to respond. Flight 93 was delayed for a while and that's why the passengers were able to gain new information and fight back against their hijackers. Because they knew they'd die either way. The other passengers on the other planes didn't know this. Up until they were smashing into the WTC, they'd be thinking they were heading somewhere to land and just had to sit still and they'd be safe. That's why it was piss easy to "infiltrate and take over the sky's".

There was about 10/15 minutes between realisation that a plane had been hijacked and the first plane crashing into a tower. They had messaged they were going to land at an airport, jets would have been scrambled in that time.

Take over the skys Absolute nonsense.

(09-15-2017, 08:38 AM)Shteve Wrote: Four hijacked planes in the sky, seemingly able to do what they want and crash in to whatever target they wish, or is that too sensationalist for you? Were they just leisurely flying a plane.

I just enjoyed your romantic way of describing the wonders of flight, m8 - calm down.

(09-15-2017, 08:45 AM)Roger H. Sterling Wrote: What do you mean infiltrate and take over the sky's above the USA? Believe it or not, in 2001, brown people were allowed to fly on planes alongside white people without too much suspicion. They were also legally allowed to board with small pocket knives. Hijackings weren't that uncommon then, and almost all of them were about taking hostages and having demands met. Nobody anticipated they'd use the planes as projectiles.

The terrorists planned the attacks to happen simultaneously so that the USA had no time to respond. Flight 93 was delayed for a while and that's why the passengers were able to gain new information and fight back against their hijackers. Because they knew they'd die either way. The other passengers on the other planes didn't know this. Up until they were smashing into the WTC, they'd be thinking they were heading somewhere to land and just had to sit still and they'd be safe. That's why it was piss easy to "infiltrate and take over the sky's".

Yeh I imagine so as America has got some brown people in it.

There's lots of stuff about 9/11 that doesn't sit right with me.

(09-15-2017, 08:52 AM)Shteve Wrote: Yeh I imagine so as America has got some brown people in it.

There's lots of stuff about 9/11 that doesn't sit right with me.

That's fine Lewis. You're allowed to be sceptical. Usually though, when you doubt the facts, there's an alternative theory you'd have. I don't understand why you'd reject a version of events without a more plausible alternative.

Certainly a few things didn't sit right with me either. The way the buildings fell was weird. All 3 WTC buildings collapsing in the same way, via different damage, and around the same times. So then you go "must have been controlled demolition". But for that theory to be right we've got imagine that somehow a crew of demolition experts were able to get into and set explosives in 3 World Trade Centre buildings and the Pentagon. And if there was controlled demolitions, why didn't they detonate whatever building United 93 was heading for? And if they didn't, are those explosives still there or did they manage to defuse and remove all of the evidence post 9/11?

Issues with conspiracy theories are that they raise more questions than they answer and eventually you're having to make larger leaps of faith than the official story ever asked of you. Don't get why it's easier to accept such a wild chain of events over the pretty simplistic reality.

Speaking things that don't sit easy. What was the deal with the third building that was destroyed. That always seemed a bit dodgy.