Top 5 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked

Discussion in '9/11' started by DDave, Dec 2, 2011.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I can't believe I'm starting a thread in here. Especially using a YouTube video. :mrgreen:

    The format seems popular with the truthers and this is nicely summarized.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q20NmYGE-T4"]Top 5 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked - YouTube[/ame]

    It gets tiring having to refute the same ridiculous theories over and over again.
     
  2. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Plane parts could easily have been planted before and after the crash.

    The video from the camera at the gas station doesn't show the plane. The footage taken from the guard gate shows a craft that's obviously not a 757.

    Here's a picture of it.
    http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

    There's more on that here.
    http://able2know.org/topic/177268-1#post-4782975

    Their analysis of this picture at the 1:00 mark is lame.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q20NmYGE-T4

    If there were a 757 where they say there's one, its shadow would be under it. There's no shadow. That's the nose of a craft that's too small to be a 757.

    Here's a post from another thread with some evidence of a controlled demolition.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...de-towers-did-thermate-do-12.html#post4782383

    That video is just a lame attempt to obfuscate the clear evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.
     
  3. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And there "could be" a Starship Enterprise that we don't know about. Your entire stance is based on the words "could have".

    That is really pathetic on every level.

    It took a while but your hesitation to write your theories out is now well understood. It comes from crazy koo-koo land where "could have" means "did" and "possible" becomes "probable".

    This is why your movement is dead.
    This is why your movement has not gotten anywhere in 10 years.
    This is why your movement is a joke.

    You should expect more from yourself.
     
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey candycorn-

    At the 1:00 time mark of this video it's alledged that the object that looks like the nose of the plane is smoke and the plane is in front of it.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q20NmYGE-T4

    Do you agree with that?
     
  5. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    More coulda woulda shoulda. And AA77 could have been highjacked and crashed into the Pentagon. Oh wait, that DID actually happen.

    Makes more sense than the bullcrap you've been linking to.

    No evidence, just theories.

    So much for the thermite claim.
    http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/23/OWpC_1WP8do

    There is no clear evidence. Only theories, quotes taken out of context, analysis based on faulty premises, and maybes and could haves.
     
  6. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
  7. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Scott,

    They don't say anything. They just show an illustration. I'd agree with you that it was rather brief.

    I think what they are trying to show is that skeptics are focusing on an artifact of a blurred moving part of the image and illustrating what the blurred image is. Which makes a lot of sense since the security camera would not have been capable of freezing an object moving at over 500 mph. Fangbeer already explained that to you.

    Here's one that provides more detail of the AA77 at the Pentagon issue.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/24/t1wQ2BJsgx0

    More detail and reference points in that one.
     
  8. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you refuse to address the points I raised about the picture?
     
  9. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not blurred. It's very clear. It has a shadow line and the shadow is consistent with the shadow of the Pentagon.
    http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

    You are misrepresenting the theory that the video is putting forth. It's pretty clear that the view of the person who made that video is that there is a 757 just to the left of the object on the right of the picture. You know that's so ridiculous that you're trying to muddy the waters. It was a mistake to post that video.

    I did but you just obfuscate endlessly. There's some info on that at the top of the page of this link below.
    http://able2know.org/topic/177268-1#post-4782975

    That's the nose of a craft and it ain't a 757. There are several plausible theories. One is that's it's a fighter-sized craft that fired a missile just before hitting the Pentagon. Another is that it's a doctored picture and a bomb was detonated just as a 757 flew over the Pentagon.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGvXVzdlcQk
    (8 parts)

    I personally think the theory of a fighter-size craft is more likely as a missile seems to have penatrated some interior walls of the Pentagon.

    Either way the nose of a 757 wouldn't look like that. If that were the nose of a 757 and it's been distorted by the fish-eye lens, the part of the Pentagon that's as far from the camera as the craft is would be similarly distorted. It isn't though.

    Give us your view of what the maker of the video is saying at the 1:00 time mark.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q20NmYGE-T4
     
  10. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You did not, and I was quite clear with my point.

    The camera used to take the photograph is not capable of capturing an object moving at 400+ miles an hour. The technology used does not scan fast enough to accurately image something moving that fast. The result is a image that does not represent the actual object.

    The portion of the image that you keep claiming is the 'nose' can be a composite of many different sections of the aircraft as the aircraft moved through the ccd's active scan region.

    The technology is not similar at all to traditional photography. The CCD does not capture the image all at once, like with traditional film. The image is scanned pixel by pixel over a period of time. As such, the CCD can clearly capture multiple periods of time in a single frame. Traditional film can look blurred as an object moves during the exposure because the light constantly interacts with the film during the entire exposure duration. A CCD on the other hand, captures individual points which are not exposed over the entire duration of the scan.

    I showed many examples of this effect and you have not addressed this issue once.
     
  11. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The picture of the nose of the craft belies what you've said.
    http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

    It's surface is obviously metalic and the shadow line is very clear and consistent with the shadow of the Penagon.

    I think most of these pictures were taken from the ground.
    http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&c....,cf.osb&fp=40f59ef3fbab28f1&biw=1152&bih=700

    They all look pretty clear. I think you're just trying to obfuscate the issue. You don't seem to be objective because you ignored this part of my last post.
    You also didn't criticize DDave when he said this.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/193865-disinformation-shills-28.html#post4751196
    Where the nose is is very clear and his saying that was a lame attempt at obfuscation.

    There's also this.
    http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm

    The other picture which shows the tail of the craft makes it clear that it was too short to be a 757.

    You also didn't criticize candycorn for not being objective about the info about the light poles that I keep posting.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/193865-disinformation-shills-34.html#post4787557

    That shows a clear lack of objectivity.
     
  12. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This video is stupid. Bunch of fallacies and strawmen. Who says those are the "top 5" 9/11 conspiracies?!

    About Pentagon, who ever said there were no identifiable debris? The truth movement is HUGE. Did the collective of the TM say that? Most truthers who don't believe a 757 hit there I see don't disagree there was debris, but that is was all small or light enough to be planted.

    And what would photos of a missile strike to the building look like?!

    Those two Pentagon videos DID NOT show a recognizable 757. If fact, that one looked like a missile if anything!

    About Larry, he said "pull IT". "It" is not how you refer to people (go up to any fire squad and refer them as "it" if you don't believe me). The segment of the documentary he was feature was a segment about the WTC 7 collapsing!!! The alleged fireman who he claims called him has NEVER been identified (hmmm). The "they" who made the "decision to pull," only skeptics say that must of been the Fire Dept. Truthers have never said that. But funny Larry commented how they "watched" the 7 collapsed after "they" made the decision to "pull"!


    So why still no debunking of the no-plane-buried-in-Shanksville theory? That should be one of the EASIEST conspiracy theories to debunk if a most of a 757 really buried there!
     
  13. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No, it's blurred. If it was clear, it would still be clear when zoomed in. But when the video zooms in, it gets even worse.

    Fangbeer is trying to explain to you why it is blurred.

    Did you watch this one yet?
    http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/24/t1wQ2BJsgx0

    Lots more detail than the summary in the OP.
     
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    No we expect more from the trustees who are in breach of trust, breach of contract and committing criminal negligence and their asses should all be hauled into court right along with their supporters.
     
  15. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The amount of time and energy your skeptic cult group spends trying to combat the Truth Movement suggests otherwise!
     
  16. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're obviously not reading or understanding what I wrote. I suggest you study the technology used to capture the image you pretend to be analyzing. Come back when you can explain to me exactly how the camera used could have clearly captured the nose of the aircraft moving at 400+ miles an hour. I've already explained how it could not have. To that point you have nothing to say.

    I will criticize anyone that claims with certainty that that image shows the nose of an aircraft.

    Prove that the camera used could have captured a frame containing an object moving at 400+ miles an hour.

    You've not posted objective info to comment on. You've posted fairy tails and suppositions. None of the light pole links you have provided have contained concrete data that could be used as evidence to support your argument. You really should take a step back and objectively read some of these theories that you keep posting here. They make no sense at all, and they are not supported with any concrete evidence. There's no evidence at all that the light poles were planted, rigged, or faked in any way. The fantasies put forth by truthers on the issue are only that. They are fantasies that help to fill in the large gaps in their conclusions. There's nothing scientific, or concrete to them. They are vaporware.
     
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [​IMG]


    I have a cheap old sony handy came cost me about 600 bucks in the late 90's that will stop a bullet at 1600++ feet per second.


    more of your same
    [​IMG]
     
  18. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Hey, suede. How ya been? Well, at least you watched the video.

    Please point them out.

    I don't know. But I guess we do know what photos of an American Airlines jet strike to the Pentagon look like, don't we?

    Too bad the rest of the evidence doesn't support your theory.

    Wrong
    http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/7/43F54hR0NW8

    Buried or crashed?
    http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/9/xkivdEGph9A
    http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/8/vgjWU6jXrdc
     
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    since all the witnesses in a position to know beyond reasonable doubt stated they flew over the naval building Candy already nailed that down with certainty that the Enterprise did it.

    Probably while fighting the klingons.
     
  20. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The info in the first post of that thread shows plausible scenarios for the light poles and the light poles therefore can't be used as proof that a plane flew from that direction. That's the point. You are twisting things around the way a sophist does.

    You evaded the point I made. He said he had a hard time locating the object in the picture. The issue isn't the analysis of what the object is or looks like.
    http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

    The location is very clear. Your tap dancing around and evading questions is the classic behavior of a sophist who doesn't even believe his own arguments.
     
  21. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Please post a picture of it doing so.

    But then again, a bullet can be scanned much faster than a JUMBO JET so I'm not sure how relevant that is.
     
  22. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You must have missed this one.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/24/t1wQ2BJsgx0

    136 eye witnesses.

    And it would be nice if you could learn how to properly quote a post as well. You and 10aces seem to have a hard time with that. :mrgreen:
     
  23. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The word plausible is subjective, not objective. I happen to think your scenarios are not plausible. In fact, they are implausible. Prove me wrong with concrete evidence.

    Oh no. I'm not going to let you get away with that little goalpost shift. You can't have it both ways. Your claim is that the object is the nose of the aircraft and that it is too long to be that of a passenger airliner. That is the issue. You don't get to change which parts of your argument I take issue with. That's not the way it works. I can conclusively prove that the camera used could not have taken a clear photograph of the nose of the aircraft moving at 400+ miles an hour. Your argument on the subject is non existent.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    Prove that the camera used could have captured a clear frame containing just the nose of the aircraft in the location you claim it to be. Otherwise admit you're wrong and we can move on.
     
  24. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not the whole issue-the issue of that particular question.

    You're trying to draw attention away from this.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/193865-disinformation-shills-28.html#post4751196
    Your fellow pro-official version poster got careless and said something very lame. Then he lamely tried to control the damage when asked about it. You are trying to help him sweep this under the rug which shows you're not objective. That's just what teams of sophists do. They back each other up when they get careless when they try to obfuscate things.

    The big issue is what the object in this picture is.
    http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

    I don't have any photography background but I've never seen a distorted picture of any high-speed object at that distance from the camera. Here are some samples.
    http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&c...2&bih=700&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&cad=b

    The way you tap dance around and avoid issues like the one I mentioned above is consistent with a sophist who doesn't believe his own arguments. Also, how do you know what kind of camera was used to take those pictures?

    The way you deal with the info in post number one of this thread is very telling.
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632

    Candycorn has said that the light poles prove a 757 flew from that angle and hit the Pentagon. The info in that post shows some plausible scenarios that would explain the light poles so they are therefore not proof that a 757 flew in from that direction. This comment of yours shows you either don't understand how debates work, or are trying to avoid the issue and muddy the waters.
    After your classic sophist behavior, why should we take your analysis of the object in the picture seriously?
     
  25. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even the bullet would be longer or shorter then actual size using modern high speed technology. The faster the scan, the smaller the effect is, but it still exists no matter how fast you get. Modern imaging technology cannot "stop time." We can only cut it up into sections.

    Also, the distance from the CCD is important. The further away the object is, the more of it that is captured by a single pixel. This is why things that are further away appear smaller, and seem to move slower. The fisheye lens messes with this proportion, however. Due to the lensing effect, the object is actually much closer then it appears to be in the image.

    For someone to prove me wrong they would have to know:

    1. The distance of the object from the camera.
    2. The speed of the object.
    3. The resolution of the CCD
    4. The speed of the CCD.
    5. The actual distance the object covered during the duration of the scan.
     

Share This Page