Yes there was, if you posted that conspiracy theory about any other subject it would have been laughable...
Oh regarding no sound btw, you realise sound travels slower than light - the impact would indeed be silent, the sounds would come moments later once the person was ducking for cover.
Also dont under-estimate the power of ... movies. I'll explain...
I watched a cargo plane crashing once, I saw it flying low on its way to an abrupt halt in a nearby forest, I remember looking at it thinking "f*** thats low" and I remember the noticeable lack of movie music given the drama that was unfolding...
I was quite struck by how silent everything was - infact for a moment I looked away thinking "nah, it cant be crashing".
Sure enough it crashed, killing pilot + copilot (no other souls on board), several trees, and a quirrel.
In short, the full quote in context and an understanding of the witnesses situation would be necessary to use this as provenanceable evidence of the 9/11 being silent.
Remember the biggest thread your nation (i'm going to blattantly and arrogantly assume because I cant be bothered to check, but whatever nationality you are this still applies) has ever faced is dimwitted idiocy. America elected a dimwitted idiot and the world will be fealing the effects of his reign for years to come: war; depression; and still New Orleans is a wasteland. Don't be an idiot, look at the actual facts.
Despite all of the conspiracy theories there is still no justified reasoning for why the terror attacks of 9/11 would be governmental operations. I've heard some grasping at straws, but i'm yet to hear a provenanceable reason.
Also, seriously, hologram technology isn't that advanced. Let alone what kind of magneto-weapon you are suggesting for the actual tower destruction (still much easier to just fly a damned plane into the tower).
All this, and I only read the first paragraph of your original post.
If you'd like to have more gaping holes in your theory presented i'll read another paragraph.
hmm let me s...no
ok lets make this very simple... if the goal was to grant the championship to ferrari no matter what why didnt they ban mclaren entirely like any other sport does with doping cases which are reasonably similar in nature
your claims fall down on the same simple basis as the 911 conspiracy and any other conspiracy theory there is
even if there were a conspiracy flying a plane into a building would be much simpler than what they supposedly actually did to bring down the towers and similarly rightfully banning mclaren from the championship for gaining an unfair advantage by illegal methods would be far simpler and less controversial than handing out penalties during the season which as weve seen this year has a fairly good chance of not working out in the end after all
in conclusion just because you like to believe in an evil empire doesnt make bernie wear a black cape and breathe heavily
You're trying to simplify a complicated scenario. Fail. You might as well say "FIA are not biased because pig". It would make as much sense.
I never said that the FIA were attempting to gift Ferrari the championship no matter what. If you want to argue with me and dispute the points I'm making, at least address the points I'm making and stop making up a fictional version of my argument to disagree with.
My point is that there is an established base of evidence to support the understanding that Mosley has a vendetta against Dennis. I seriously doubt that anyone with a grasp of understanding of the topic would question this. Yes, I know you do question it, which is why I don't think you have a grounding of basic F1 history.
I absolutely believe Jo Ramirez when he says "'I Think Max Mosley Wants To D ... McLaren's Ron Dennis ..." because the evidence, as suppressed as it indeed is, is there. He didn't make that statement lightly, but he did wait until he'd retired from F1 before making it. Just because politics are suppressing the truth doesn't mean there's no untold truth. Ferrari are the means by which Mosley seeks revenge on Dennis less than they are an end in themselves, but I don't believe that a Ferrari bias can be discounted as a factor in its own right.
Did you have any thoughts on the Renault situation? I can't find them.
Just because you think I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me
i may have got you muddled up with all the other conspiracy theorists who have begin paraphrasing fia as ferrari international assistance but tell me what exactly is the big goal here? and more importantly why
a vendetta now? do me a favour take a step back for just a moment and listen to yourself for once... see if you can keep a straigh face while you do
i seriously doubt that anyone besides you and a few other mclaren employees actually believes such a preposterous idea
again if that was the case why would he chose to not use the huge cricket bat dennis handed him on a silver platter last year and resort to harrassing him with pinneedles instead?
other than the usual which is that the fia uses a d6 possibly a d3 to make decisions? no
i thought it was dennis just a few moments ago and now you too? sorry to disappoint but despite certain connections max is not the reincarnation of the only person who ever looked good in the back of a 4 seat convertible
I think you just don't know anything about this particular subject and instead of actually looking into it, you choose to believe in a basic premise that the FIA and Mosley are beyond reproach and would not/could not interfere with anything as public as a F1 championship. That's your choice and I guess you're happy that way. They do say ignorance is bliss.
so now im ignorant because i dont believe in some ridiculous conspiracy theory?
for one ive said time and again that i think the fia and f1 are nerfing anybody who is winning to make the whole thing more exciting for the viewer and if anything theyve thoroughly succeeded this year
in fact this whole conpiracy theory is even less logical than the 911 ones which at least have a fairly clear cut motif with self evident advantages for the conspiring parties... the conspiracy to "destroy" ron dennis has none of these
Was watching some Charlie Sheen videos, then somehow got to his 9/11 talk video, which led me to "September clues" series of videos. Probably most of you saw it and already ditched it but i saw them the first time..
Some VERY interesting 'evidence' there.. Guy did it very well and well documented.. There's maybe 20% of "shut the **** up", but the rest is pretty plausible and well presented..
Anyone watched it and what you think about it?
I am dissapoint too But some very interesting facts there that i heard for the first time, like all the eyewitness videos that we all know, were 'acidentally' recorded by people that are somehow related to the media, editing and graphical branches..
Buildings fall when their foundations are subject to high enough amounts lateral force that something such as two 100+ story buildings crumbling to the ground beside the building in question.
I know.. it's an old post, but I decided I'd replay to it. I never was a big conspiracy theorist myself. Now, if there's a large ammount of support for something, I'll look into it, but until then, I'll stick to that which is generaly accepted and apparently evident.
I'm not a physical expert. But all that steel, Combined with wind, Means the wind gusts were stronger than the force of the plane itself.
Why were people screaming there are no windows on the plane?
Jet fuel burns at about 1,000F ( Open air, Not compressed )
Steel melts at around 4,000, How does 1,000 degrees of heat translate down 100+ floors?
Sun has insane amount of heat, Burns at somewhat something kelvin. We only get a max of about 120F Heat cannot travel that far through steel How does the whole building fall? What about the parts that weren't weakened? Steel is heavy yes. Steel also cannot defy the laws of physics and loose NO speed while falling through steel and carpet (Constructed to survive earthquakes/hurricanes)
My 4c. (2 is to little.. more trolling. 4 is... less trolling.