Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Any truth to this?

  1. Apr 9, 2005 #1

    Are there any truth to any of the these things? Was the bilding seven demolished? Was there a nazi party in america? If you just gonna say 'this a conspiracy' then just go away.
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 9, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    KKK seem pretty Nazi to me...

  4. Apr 9, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    One building was demolished later in the day by some company because some engineers realized the structure had been weakend to a point that it was unimaginably dangerous to actually try to save the building. Not sure if it was #7 though. There has always been a nazi party of america lol.

    Most people that go on rants like that guy did are usually pretty dumb. There the type to think that if a government report about the military is censored, it must be aliens! or some junk like that. Anyone who yells about "machine guns" are usually rather ignorant. Most military types call them rifles or automatic rifles. Not to say anything definitative... but in my own experience, people who say machine gun usually dont understand police work or equipment or anything necessary to be saying things related to martial law.

    This guy seems to have very little credibility to me. Anyone who uses buzz words are usually making up crap/are ignorant because if your story is really true, you dont need buzz words or hyperbole. The one that made me laugh is the audible beam that he goes "is being used in iraq!!!". Now, intelligent person thinks "Ok... its used in iraq... and in the us... so? Hell they would use it in france or england or canada" but the close-minded would htink "omg america is under military control just like in iraq! and this is definitive proof!" or something like that.

    I really dispise people who make films like that simply to get sales (Look at the DVD price, thats a big profit margin). Its funny how they claim people are exploiting 9/11 by whatever trumped up crap they say when they are the ones tryen to sell a high priced DVD of 9/11.
  5. Apr 9, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Something i came up on google made me laugh. Theres this one website posting a theory that the WTC was hit by a missile.... no not hte pentagon... the WTC. They show a few frames of a video where this "missile" comes flying out. Now... exactly how does a missile come in... blow up.... then proceed to leave out the other side? Plus of coures... millions of people are watching it if it was the 2nd tower... and video of the first tower being hit by the airplane. Im sure the reason they didnt show the rest of the video is that you'd see the "missile" fall harmlessly to the ground. I mean ugh... these conspiracy theories are so disrespectful.
  6. Apr 9, 2005 #5
    Okay you missing the point... I didn't ask for anyone's opinion on the conspiracy. What I am asking if what he is saying in suport of his theory is true? IE his references to reports,history,science etc. Or does he make them up? He says that Dick Chaney took over the norad and prevented it from shooting down the planes or something.
  7. Apr 9, 2005 #6
    shouldn't this be in the debunking forum then?
  8. Apr 9, 2005 #7
    I believe he take bits of truths and he arranges it in such a way to make it sound sensational. He is after all trying to sell his DVD. I don't believe he tells the whole truth. Only what sounds good for the camera and his pocket.
  9. Apr 9, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thats absolute stupidity. "Dick Chaney took over NORAD". Now... if you know what NORAD is... that statement is absolutely insane. How would some lil dip**** know that that happened? Who outside of the people working at NORAD would ever be able to find that out since your not even allowed to say you work at NORAD in the first place if you do work there. Most peoples "scientific" evidence is usually entirely false. I dont know where the actual claims are on the page but anyone whos had their fair of conspiracy theories know that the science is usually completely incorrect.

    Someone throw some links out here or direct me to the actual nitty gritty of this bs.
  10. Apr 9, 2005 #9
  11. Apr 9, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    can someone give me links on that infoseek or whatever site for the conspiracy things where theres stuff to dispute.
  12. Apr 9, 2005 #11
    He has as much credential as anyone. Every time something like this comes up most people just it is bs. Because you say it is bs that does make it so. Back up your claim with some info. He does that and I want to know if what he said about the attack, Bush's history, and the secret society is true. How is it that the US government say that they never heard about the plans of attack agains the US by the terrorist even though it appears that they were warned by numerous intelligence agencies from other countries. How is it that they demolished the seventh building which was the furthest away from the WTC towers and yet sustained so much damage that he had to be demolished while the other buildings that were right next to the towers were not? And that is just impossible that they found the hijacker's passport in the rubble. I mean how is it that the flames were so hot that they melted steel but did not burn the passport? Why don't they release the video that they ceased from the surveillance cameras around pentagon? And why do Bush family belong to a secrete society that does weird stuff and has the same logo as Hitlers (the skull and bone one)? And when asked about it they start acting weird and all. I want to see comments other than 'oh that guy is a retard and he is ignorant and this is bs.' Show some info with your claim.
  13. Apr 9, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Actually he doesnt. He just draws links that dont actually mean anything in reality. And im not sure what he said about his history but just because he says its true, doesnt mean it is or encompasses the whole story. The secrety society exists but has existed for a very long time and any assumed connection is just that, assumed. The US government knew there were plans of attacks against hte US and repeatedly said this because guess what, theres ALWAYS someone planning an attack on the US and has been for over a century. The UK intelligence agencies, among others, gave the information to the US that there was an "imminent major attack". The "hook" to this BS is that you have to be ignorant enough to think that since the US was told theres an attack, that they should have been able to stop 9/11. No clue how they found the passports or if they even did but its possible. Debris flies right out the other end and through the windows and hteres no reason to think the passports werent part of it. And government agencies rarely release video from major events such as this. Again, its a hook to make people ASSUME the government lied. And ask yourself this, what does being in a society with the same symbol as Hitler's group (along with thousands of other societies that use the same symbol) have anything to do with a 9/11 conspiracy?

    Ask yourself what your actually assuming and then you'll start realizing why people think these conspiracies are dumb.

    For example: Look at United Airlines volume. These guys claim there was a 9000% jump in call orders. Take a look at the stock data for yourself and the volume was actually below average in the days before 9/11.

    Lets look at something else... Ah yes, FBI ignores fanatical french-algerian who took flying lessons. Sounds like 9/11 was being painted for them right and this is proof! But wait a second... actually read the article and the only people who should have been worried should have been the French... plus the guy was jailed. I suppose since there was a relationship though, its definitive proof the 9/11 hijackers were ignored because the FBI is incompetant (or, seeing as how this website isnt consistent in its beliefs, the person who was in cahoots with the US)
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2005
  14. Apr 10, 2005 #13
    Please, do tell what am I to assume.
    Do you not think that people are capable of bs these days? Martha Stewart was jailed for some $50 000, which is pocket change for her, and yet she still lied about it. Now about the 9/11 the hard thing is to believe that this can happen on such a humongous scale. Surely some in the chain would break and expose it. The WTC was attacked before and there were practice simulations.

    As hypatia pointed out norad did not stand down but rather it was delayed.
    from http://www.standdown.net/index.htm
    The Military Screw-up Nobody Talks About
    by Scott Shugar

    With a minute-by-minute chronology from 7:59 a.m. till 10:06:05 a.m., this article will dismantle the Wednesday September 18, 2001 North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) Press Release. This press release encompasses the (supposed) response times of the United States Air Force on Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

    That is what norad is for and yet it didn't do jack. Now they pulling Canada into the missile shield, talk about iron curtain.
    Okay then why did they build norad? Why do they have jet fighters? Why spend so much money of defence if, in your words, there is nothing they can do? Now they want Canada to join the missile shield. And how is that going to help? If norad didn't protect then how can this shield protect anything?

    Last edited: Apr 10, 2005
  15. Apr 10, 2005 #14
    From your IGNORAD site. I just found it odd that someone thought you could spook these terrorists, who were already willing to die. There will always be "what if" with 9/11. The artical points out alot of "what if" but no real answers.
  16. Apr 10, 2005 #15


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    One glimpse at that sight and "nutcase" comes to mind.

    I don't think anyone here is actually going to waste their time reading through something like that. Why don't you make a clear list of the questions you have?

    Your notion of what NORAD was originally for is wrong. They weren't prepared for a domestic attack by a commercial airplane.

    From NORAD's site. "Until the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD's focus was almost exclusively fixed on threats coming toward the Canadian and American borders, not terrorism in our domestic airspace. Because of that day, NORAD's focus has increased to include domestic airspace."

  17. Apr 10, 2005 #16


    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    Im not sure what the martha stewart thing has to do with anything but you do realize the actual situation she was facing right? if so, you wouldnt have thought it was dumb to do what she did (hindsight is 20/20). She did something that looked like insider trading... which is a felony i believe... and her lawyer said to lie to get off the hook. Whatw ould you have done? Thats right.

    And its ironic you say that 9/11 was so humungous that someone HAD to have had exposed something when you are pointing us to a website saying peopel were exposing things left and right. And it was not humungous at all. Doing all the pre-9/11 stuff was rather easy. Hell with the money, i coudl go out and do the training myself and find the flight schedules! Not very humongous in my eyes. And the 9/11 stuff wasnt that hard as long as you can hijack hte planes (and as we saw, they werent even able to do that 100% correctly).

    As far as NORAD is concerned, you must not know what NORAD actually does or is (plus fo course you think Canada isnt apart of it for some reason). NORAD's main job is to detect and respond to any UNAUTHORIZED or UNIDENTIFIED flying object, be it human or space debris. It was made to detect incoming bomber formations or fighters or missiles or space crap coming into US territory or heading into US territory or anything coming over US territory. The key is it is UNAUTHORIZED or UNIDENTIFIED. All airplanes have transponders that relay to airports and such about who they are. They are thus, identified. NORAD sees identified aircraft and doesnt do anythinga bout them. The airplanes used in the 9/11 attack were identified and authorized. When they go off course, it was also very common for NORAD not to scramble jets from relatively nearby (to the airplane) bases because planes going off course happens about 1-3 times every day so its not a big concern pre-9/11. And if you read your own rhetoric, planes were in fact scrambled about half an hour late at the 2nd airplane to hit the WTC but was too late. Theres also speculation of course that fighters did take down that airplane in virginia or wherever it was because it had also gone off course and they had enough time to scramble fighters. But thats of course, speculation and theres little to no evidence that that happened.

    And please, dont try to defend yourself with a comedy central news parody unless we have a jokes and humour section that you would like to write in.
  18. Apr 10, 2005 #17


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I am wasting my time in the name of truth, justice, and the fact that i have too much time on my hands!

    Mainly because i have too much time on my hands. I dont really care what he feels is the truth or not.
  19. Apr 10, 2005 #18
    That's because truth doesn't exist. There is only perception.
  20. Apr 10, 2005 #19


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well thats not very scientific or useful now is it.
  21. Apr 10, 2005 #20
    Uhm no...


    "According to a statement from NORAD, "Before September 11th, 01, NORAD regularly conducted a variety of exercises that included hijack scenarios. These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?