Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on May 03, 2010, 05:00:38 PM
-
interesting
-
The US government will NEVER admit to the fact that this was DOMESTIC TERRORISM and the "airplane " that crashed in to the Pentagon was a Patriot Missile
-
cue a few people who shit their pants on 911 to mock these pilots for not knowing their shit.
cue emotional attachment preventing logic.
-
Cue the idiots who believe speculation, opinions, and unanswered questions from people not involved constitutes actual facts.
Cue the idiots who can't put forth a logical theory of who, how, and why.
Cue the...oh wait, they've already dropped in here...
-
its funny no parts of the plane were found, even at the towers they found pieces of the engine
-
for the first time in history, jet fuel vaporized titanium.
-
its funny no parts of the plane were found, even at the towers they found pieces of the engine
Isn't that something...and to think those who believe the US governments LIES about what happened, do not take any of that into consideration. No luggage, no bodies, no engines, no landing gear, no wings...NOTHING. But somehow that is NORMAL to them...ya hear me Skip
-
Still waiting for that list 240...you know the list of ppl, companies, states, countries and anyone else involved in the planning of or the cover up...
You know just so I can stay away from those sneaky bastards ;)
-
for the first time in history, jet fuel vaporized titanium.
Imagine that? Titanium doesn't even melt until it reaches 3500 degree. To vaporize it would require doubling or tripling of that temperature, yet there are pics of offices right near the crash with phones, computers, books, papers, plants, painting etc not even singed.
-
tonymctones you have to addmit no plane parts nothing don't seem right ???
-
tonymctones you have to addmit no plane parts nothing don't seem right ???
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=618_1252533350&comment_order=newest_first
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=618_1252533350&comment_order=newest_first
And with that, they move onto the next theory. Time for the hologram theory to make a reappearance. ::)
That's a MASSIVE owning.
-
And with that, they move onto the next theory. Time for the hologram theory to make a reappearance. ::)
That's a massive owning.
and it took all of 20 secs and google hahhaha ;)
-
and it took all of 20 secs and google hahhaha ;)
;D
I'm guessing we'll see a Samson meltdown incoming and some more fallacies from 240. It was hit by a missile from an alien spacecraft while the US govt. was casting a hologram in the sky and then the aliens beamed any proof of a missile away.
-
Isn't that something...and to think those who believe the US governments LIES about what happened, do not take any of that into consideration. No luggage, no bodies, no engines, no landing gear, no wings...NOTHING. But somehow that is NORMAL to them...ya hear me Skip
Ya, I hear you. But, as a DOD employee and 1 of the 2,876,488 employees involved in the cover-up, I've sworn an oath never to reveal anything. That's why I won't give Tony his list. :P
-
Ya, I hear you. But, as a DOD employee and 1 of the 2,876,488 employees involved in the cover-up, I've sworn an oath never to reveal anything. That's why I won't give Tony his list. :P
AAAHHHHH HAAAAAA I gotcha now bitch...now if 240 will let know who was not in on the plot Ill know who to turn you in to.
come on 240 dont hold out we have the guys dead to rights :D
-
good find :)
-
AAAHHHHH HAAAAAA I gotcha now bitch...now if 240 will let know who was not in on the plot Ill know who to turn you in to.
come on 240 dont hold out we have the guys dead to rights :D
DOH! :D
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=618_1252533350&comment_order=newest_first
You should have done a whole hell of a lot more research because all of those photos ARE NOT of and american airplane
First question one would ask is what are execs dressed in business clothes doing picking up supposed wreckage from a crashed plane. All of that debris is evidence and where it fell is a CRIME SCENE.
Never answered is how did a commercial plane manage to fly that low, which is impossible, yet not knock down all of the light poles along the way?
Those tinny pieces of metal claimed to be parts of american airline are minuscule in size compared to a american airline plane. Nice work cropping the shit out of those pictures to avoid establishing a sense of scale.
A plane is made of aluminum (the hull), but much of it is TITANIUM and alloys with VERY HIGH MELTING POINTS (over 3000 degrees) how is it the airplane completely melted yet office computers, books, telephones, desks etc etc right in the offices next to the supposed impact were not even singed?
If the plane melted...where are the pools of molten metal? Human bones, luggage etc etc?
The tiny fire only burned for a few minutes so how was it capable of reaching 1800 degrees? Who had a thermometer to insert to verify this supposed temperature? At that temperature firemen would have never been able to get anywhere near that building yet they were there with hoses immediately?
Those picture of the rotor of a plane..hahahaah. Rolls Royce, General Electric and McDonnell Douglas all said they do NOT recognize those parts as being part of the engines they manufacture. By the way that little rotor is not more than 18 inches high...whereas a commercial jet planes rotors are NINE FEET HIGH.
Oh yeah...I just love how the plane punched holes all the way throught he multiple rings of concrete that make up the Pentagon. Amazing how that cheap thin aluminum could do that? And since there is a hole clearly seen going all the way through the last ring of the pentagon, should we not see that part of the plane that went through sitting on the other side of the hole? Yet there is nothing. and no fire was there. Hmmmm?
You'll have to do better than this TWO TOES
-
come on.... for most people, it's pure politics.
hell, you have rush drones repeating some baseless CT about obama causing the oil spill. In the case of 911, you have a mile long list of physicians, engineers, military, FDNY, NYPD, all calling for an investigation.
haha whatever, dumbshits are gonna believe what their party tells them to
-
You should have done a whole hell of a lot more research because all of those photos ARE NOT of and american airplane
First question one would ask is what are execs dressed in business clothes doing picking up supposed wreckage from a crashed plane. All of that debris is evidence and where it fell is a CRIME SCENE.
Never answered is how did a commercial plane manage to fly that low, which is impossible, yet not knock down all of the light poles along the way?
Those tinny pieces of metal claimed to be parts of american airline are minuscule in size compared to a american airline plane. Nice work cropping the shit out of those pictures to avoid establishing a sense of scale.
A plane is made of aluminum (the hull), but much of it is TITANIUM and alloys with VERY HIGH MELTING POINTS (over 3000 degrees) how is it the airplane completely melted yet office computers, books, telephones, desks etc etc right in the offices next to the supposed impact were not even singed?
If the plane melted...where are the pools of molten metal? Human bones, luggage etc etc?
The tiny fire only burned for a few minutes so how was it capable of reaching 1800 degrees? Who had a thermometer to insert to verify this supposed temperature? At that temperature firemen would have never been able to get anywhere near that building yet they were there with hoses immediately?
Those picture of the rotor of a plane..hahahaah. Rolls Royce, General Electric and McDonnell Douglas all said they do NOT recognize those parts as being part of the engines they manufacture. By the way that little rotor is not more than 18 inches high...whereas a commercial jet planes rotors are NINE FEET HIGH.
Oh yeah...I just love how the plane punched holes all the way throught he multiple rings of concrete that make up the Pentagon. Amazing how that cheap thin aluminum could do that? And since there is a hole clearly seen going all the way through the last ring of the pentagon, should we not see that part of the plane that went through sitting on the other side of the hole? Yet there is nothing. and no fire was there. Hmmmm?
You'll have to do better than this TWO TOES
Can you refute that video with anything beyond your own opinion? We all know you lie about 99.99% of what you post on here so anything you say will never be believed if it's not backed up by facts and hard evidence.
And no, speculation and opinion =/= fact.
Better yet, just shut up, shill. :D
come on.... for most people, it's pure politics.
hell, you have rush drones repeating some baseless CT about obama causing the oil spill. In the case of 911, you have a mile long list of physicians, engineers, military, FDNY, NYPD, all calling for an investigation.
haha whatever, dumbshits are gonna believe what their party tells them to
Hahaha, you're getting pretty defensive. That video does a good job refuting most of the claims about stinger missiles hitting the pentagon. Unless you think all those pictures are fabricated. ::)
-
Ya, I hear you. But, as a DOD employee and 1 of the 2,876,488 employees involved in the cover-up, I've sworn an oath never to reveal anything. That's why I won't give Tony his list. :P
You work at the Department of Dummies.... that explains everything.
-
You work at the Department of Dummies.... that explains everything.
He could be an insurance peddling engineer with a Master's degree who doesn't understand simple physics concepts. Then he'd really be succeeding at life. :-X
-
Or selling gas caps. :o :o :o
-
You should have done a whole hell of a lot more research because all of those photos ARE NOT of and american airplane
First question one would ask is what are execs dressed in business clothes doing picking up supposed wreckage from a crashed plane. All of that debris is evidence and where it fell is a CRIME SCENE.
Never answered is how did a commercial plane manage to fly that low, which is impossible, yet not knock down all of the light poles along the way?
Those tinny pieces of metal claimed to be parts of american airline are minuscule in size compared to a american airline plane. Nice work cropping the shit out of those pictures to avoid establishing a sense of scale.
A plane is made of aluminum (the hull), but much of it is TITANIUM and alloys with VERY HIGH MELTING POINTS (over 3000 degrees) how is it the airplane completely melted yet office computers, books, telephones, desks etc etc right in the offices next to the supposed impact were not even singed?
If the plane melted...where are the pools of molten metal? Human bones, luggage etc etc?
The tiny fire only burned for a few minutes so how was it capable of reaching 1800 degrees? Who had a thermometer to insert to verify this supposed temperature? At that temperature firemen would have never been able to get anywhere near that building yet they were there with hoses immediately?
Those picture of the rotor of a plane..hahahaah. Rolls Royce, General Electric and McDonnell Douglas all said they do NOT recognize those parts as being part of the engines they manufacture. By the way that little rotor is not more than 18 inches high...whereas a commercial jet planes rotors are NINE FEET HIGH.Oh yeah...I just love how the plane punched holes all the way throught he multiple rings of concrete that make up the Pentagon. Amazing how that cheap thin aluminum could do that? And since there is a hole clearly seen going all the way through the last ring of the pentagon, should we not see that part of the plane that went through sitting on the other side of the hole? Yet there is nothing. and no fire was there. Hmmmm?
You'll have to do better than this TWO TOES
Which part? The N1 or the N2? The LPC, HPC, HPT or LPT more specificlly? Do you mean the fan on the N1 while on the wing is 9 feet? From blade to blade? Or are you referring to the turbine wheels? And if so, the HPT or the LPT? Seeing as you are a jet engine whiz, I won't go into the acronyms listed. And by the way, take some titanium dust, sprinkle it over a common cigareete lighter and it will light up like a sparkler, and disappear, never to be seen again.
-
Which part? The N1 or the N2? The LPC, HPC, HPT or LPT more specificlly? Do you mean the fan on the N1 while on the wing is 9 feet? From blade to blade? Or are you referring to the turbine wheels? And if so, the HPT or the LPT? Seeing as you are a jet engine whiz, I won't go into the acronyms listed. And by the way, take some titanium dust, sprinkle it over a common cigareete lighter and it will light up like a sparkler, and disappear, never to be seen again.
Careful...if you start throwing science at her, she'll claim that the physics on the airplane is different from the physics on the ground...
-
has the surveillance video been released yet?
-
I find it funny that people who don't question 9/11 don't ask themselves why the majority of the writers/investigators that actually were a part of the 9/11 commission want a new investigation. The report is actually a very interesting read.
-
I dont have any problem with a new investigation, but my issue is that when any one theory is debunked in five seconds flat, the 911 CT'ers either go to something else or just say its a secret and that is why they cant prove or explain their claims.
I am game for anything, but so far - 10 years later, not one 911 ct'er has yet to put forward one coherent CT that cant be debunked in 5 seconds flat.
-
come on.... for most people, it's pure politics.
hell, you have rush drones repeating some baseless CT about obama causing the oil spill. In the case of 911, you have a mile long list of physicians, engineers, military, FDNY, NYPD, all calling for an investigation.
haha whatever, dumbshits are gonna believe what their party tells them to
hhaha this does explain alot of your parroting idiocy ;)
-
has the surveillance video been released yet?
since no one answered me ... why isn't there more outrage on the pentagon hiding the surveillance tapes? if there was nothin to hide then they'd show it. this should be the starting point ... what was on the tapes. once we know that we can go forward. until then this is a fucking pissing match >:(
-
Everything should be released I agree.
-
since no one answered me ... why isn't there more outrage on the pentagon hiding the surveillance tapes? if there was nothin to hide then they'd show it. this should be the starting point ... what was on the tapes. once we know that we can go forward. until then this is a fucking pissing match >:(
maybe the plane crashed into the part where they housed the aliens? I mean you cant really give the media video of that can you? if were going to start making shit up on the basis of the govt not releasing tapes of a plane hitting a building with top secret info in it then thats the one Im going to go with ;)
-
I dont have any problem with a new investigation, but my issue is that when any one theory is debunked in five seconds flat, the 911 CT'ers either go to something else or just say its a secret and that is why they cant prove or explain their claims.
I am game for anything, but so far - 10 years later, not one 911 ct'er has yet to put forward one coherent CT that cant be debunked in 5 seconds flat.
333 - Debunk the Pentagon footage at the beginning of the thread. You have 5 seconds...
-
What happened to Barbara Olsen and are you claiming the then Solicitor General of the USA, Ted Olsen, was in on this CT?
-
maybe the plane crashed into the part where they housed the aliens? I mean you cant really give the media video of that can you? if were going to start making shit up on the basis of the govt not releasing tapes of a plane hitting a building with top secret info in it then thats the one Im going to go with ;)
The Pentagon has released the footage, and, predictably, immediately after the CT'rs started claiming that there just has to be more and the Pentagon is hiding them. ::)
Funny thing is, before the footage was released, there were stills that had been leaked to the press. So in essence, the Pentagon, who can't even stop parts of the footage from being leaked to the public, is managing to pull off one of the biggest conspiracy's ever known. ::)
-
since no one answered me ... why isn't there more outrage on the pentagon hiding the surveillance tapes? if there was nothin to hide then they'd show it. this should be the starting point ... what was on the tapes. once we know that we can go forward. until then this is a fucking pissing match >:(
MB what do you say to the video that is already released of the plane hitting the pentegon and the pics?
-
The Pentagon has released the footage, and, predictably, immediately after the CT'rs started claiming that there just has to be more and the Pentagon is hiding them. ::)
Funny thing is, before the footage was released, there were stills that had been leaked to the press. So in essence, the Pentagon, who can't even stop parts of the footage from being leaked to the public, is managing to pull off one of the biggest conspiracy's ever known. ::)
Yes the surveilance photos show an explosion. Nobody is saying there wasn't an explosion.
(http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020309/wld4.jpg)
However the surveilance photos / videos don't prove that a plane hit the building at all. Can you make out a plane?
Seriously you are an idiot if you believe a plane crashed into the building. Did you look at the video at the beginning of the thread? How the hell could a plane make such a small hole? Don't tell me it's because the Pentagon walls were indestructible. If it was a plane traveling at high velocity it would have left a huge opening. The opening only became larger after a few minutes when the wall collapsed.
You and everyone that believe this is what happened are being made the bitches of the elites that planned this terror attack. How does it feel to be someone's bitch? Do you like to be the ape in the room? The people that perpetrated this crime are laughing at you in your face and your mind has been raped by this lie. Go on and believe it you would not know the truth if it was right in front of you. How anyone could even argue that a plane was anywhere near the Pentagon at this point is simply ridiculous.
-
LOL the plane was moving at 300+ mph...
and yes govt buildings are made to be bomb proof or bomb resistant I would assume that the Pentagon would have at least that if not more...
who are the ppl who perpertraded this act quad, you seem to be in the know so could you give me a list so I know who to avoid?
-
Yes the surveilance photos show an explosion. Nobody is saying there wasn't an explosion.
(http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020309/wld4.jpg)
However the surveilance photos / videos don't prove that a plane hit the building at all. Can you make out a plane?
Seriously you are an idiot if you believe a plane crashed into the building. Did you look at the video at the beginning of the thread? How the hell could a plane make such a small hole? Don't tell me it's because the Pentagon walls were indestructible. If it was a plane traveling at high velocity it would have left a huge opening. The opening only became larger after a few minutes when the wall collapsed.
You and everyone that believe this is what happened are being made the bitches of the elites that planned this terror attack. How does it feel to be someone's bitch? Do you like to be the ape in the room? The people that perpetrated this crime are laughing at you in your face and your mind has been raped by this lie. Go on and believe it you would not know the truth if it was right in front of you. How anyone could even argue that a plane was anywhere near the Pentagon at this point is simply ridiculous.
All that needs to be said is in this quote:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=618_1252533350&comment_order=newest_first
Sheeple like you that think they're "in the know" yet can't provide any hard evidence beyond "Oh my god, the elites are pulling the wool over your eyes. I can't provide any evidence of this but why can't you see it? I just know it's true because of my hunch and perceived intelligence. I just know it's true!!!OneoneoneENoEnoeneo!111oneone!" Fuck off with your idiotic CTs.
I can't stand this superiority complex all you tinfoil hat wearing loons have from thinking you're onto something and because you're not falling in with the "elite's" agenda. ::)
I really wish I could be as enlightened as you are in life. LOL.
How does it feel to be a gullible retard?
-
All that needs to be said is in this quote:
Sheeple like you that think they're "in the know" yet can't provide any hard evidence beyond "Oh my god, the elites are pulling the wool over your eyes. I can't provide any evidence of this but why can't you see it? I just know it's true because of my hunch and perceived intelligence. I just know it's true!!!OneoneoneENoEnoeneo!111oneone!" Fuck off with your idiotic CTs.
I can't stand this superiority complex all you tinfoil hat wearing loons have from thinking you're onto something and because you're not falling in with the "elite's" agenda. ::)
I really wish I could be as enlightened as you are in life. LOL.
How does it feel to be a gullible retard?
Ok use your fucking brain!! Explain the small hole. How did that happen? It is really you that's a sheep. To be gullible I have to believe the official "story". I don't and you do. That makes you the gullible one.
-
Ok use your fucking brain!! Explain the small hole. How did that happen? It is really you that's a sheep. To be gullible I have to believe the official "story". I don't and you do. That makes you the gullible one.
so whats your proof quad? all you have is that the hole is to small...what size hole would have been right?
-
tony, you obviously haven't done your research on this... the hole size is some loose change part 2, entry level shit.
It's so funny that people can shit on 911 questions when they dont know jack shit about it lol...
-
tony, you obviously haven't done your research on this... the hole size is some loose change part 2, entry level shit.
It's so funny that people can shit on 911 questions when they dont know jack shit about it lol...
LOL well explain it to me 240...give me a list doesnt have to be a complete list just a list of ppl, groups, countries, states etc...that you believe are in on it or the cover up
Ive asked you multiple times and you never answer...
-
yawn. if you want to learn more, there are people with phds who can explain the shit way better than me.
i have no clue who is behind what... But i do agree with the 911 commissioners who called their own investigation 'a whitewash' and have called for a better invetigation.
But hey, maybe you know more than they do. I don't claim to. But you do, I guess?
-
yawn. if you want to learn more, there are people with phds who can explain the shit way better than me.
i have no clue who is behind what... But i do agree with the 911 commissioners who called their own investigation 'a whitewash' and have called for a better invetigation.
But hey, maybe you know more than they do. I don't claim to. But you do, I guess?
there are also phd's who say those phd's are idiots...whats your point?
Im ok with another investigation but the thing is no matter what if they come out and say nothing fishy happend you wont buy it... ::)
-
all the proof you need that 9/11 wasn't a bomb or internal attack is with this simple sentence. You are all still alive. Do you really think a government that would kill thousands of it's own people wouldn't then kill the maker of loose change, the conspiracy theorists online, the people talking out publicly etc. They would kill each and every one of them that live in the united states and potentially abroad. Make it look like a 'car jacking' or drug deal gone bad end of story no more 'loose change'.
-
loose change being owned hahaha
-
10 years later and still not one coherent CT that makes an ounce of sense.
-
The US government will NEVER admit to the fact that this was DOMESTIC TERRORISM and the "airplane " that crashed in to the Pentagon was a Patriot Missile
Sam... so where did all the people who died on the plane go??
-
They were taken into a field and secretely murdered somewhere.
Even the then Solicitor General Ted Olson, the top lawyer for the US Govt was in on it to since his wife was on that plane.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
its funny no parts of the plane were found, even at the towers they found pieces of the engine
This post is another example of ignorance...
The WTC was a hollow steel and glass building basically able to absorb the impact of another hollow aluminum tube-like structure flying at 500 mph. Which is why there was pieces of the plane still intact.
The Pentagon was/is a highly fortified concrete structure, some 3 to 4 ft thick and with many layers. It was designed to withstand such an attack from Russian ambush. Now, when something like a plane who is again, a mostly hollow aluminum structure, flying at the speed it was, hits this structure, there will most likely NOT be pieces intact and recognizable. How do I know this? My degree is mechanical engineering. My father - in - law spent 4 years at the pentagon in the 60's while serving in the Navy. Also, Popular Mechanics debunked all of the conspiracy theories such as this.
I can turn this around and say there were no people in the WTC.. EITHER. Why? Because there was no evidence of any seats, desks.. So, if people worked there, where did they sit? Why wasn't there any debris from these items?? Because as the buildings fell, they basically collapsed onto themselves acting like a grinder. Billions of tons of material fell, pancaking ontop of itself. Desks, again, a hollow item, were grinded up to nothing.
Stop and think before you fall for this kind of crap man.
-
They were taken into a field and secretely murdered somewhere.
Even the then Solicitor General Ted Olson, the top lawyer for the US Govt was in on it to since his wife was on that plane.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
I know. It sucks when the facts get in the way of the story...
-
lets hear it CT'ers...240 kc posted a video to debunk your loose change points what do you say to that?
-
lets hear it CT'ers...240 kc posted a video to debunk your loose change points what do you say to that?
Nothing to say... I read where the CT's were "checking their data" to make it fit their story after the Pop Mech killed their dreams.
-
Look, I love a CT as much as anyone else, but what has put forth so far is embarassingly bad and incoherent. I have said from day 1 and the CT'ers can't accept it - for any part of the CT to be true, the entire thing has to be true. So lets say for example they are able to prove the pentagon part was shady, they then also have to explain everything else for the CT to be true. Now granted the official story probably not full since it was never really told to avoid the negligence of the many levels of govt in failing to catch these bums beforehand, but negligence is not the same thing as a CT.
There are so many holes in the CT's put forth that the whole thing collapses like a house of cards so easily I would think after 10 years the CT'ers could at least come up with something by now.
Never anything on:
1. Who did it?
2. How did they do it?
3. When did they plan it?
4. How did they cover it up?
5. Why did they do it?
Geez you CT'ers, at least come up with something decent.
-
it's so stupid it's almost unbelievable that two retards can post bullsh8t theories find a minority of "experts" and take hearsay statements ::) then claim it's truth. What fools. I honestly can not fathom believing this is an inside job, i can't understand the delusion you would have to be under to take such an idea with all the evidence pointing otherwise and skew it to what you believe. Only in this day and age where information is so free and available do we have so many idiots following each other. the downside of information exchange i guess.
-
it's so stupid it's almost unbelievable that two retards can post bullsh8t theories find a minority of "experts" and take hearsay statements ::) then claim it's truth. What fools. I honestly can not fathom believing this is an inside job, i can't understand the delusion you would have to be under to take such an idea with all the evidence pointing otherwise and skew it to what you believe. Only in this day and age where information is so free and available do we have so many idiots following each other. the downside of information exchange i guess.
KC - these are the assumptions you have to make to belive the 911 CT:
1. In 10 years not one person in on largest terrorist attack of its kind had a crisis of conscience and talked.
2. Not one person told their spouse and the spouse talked.
3. Not one person slipped up in any way possible. Every single person in on this CT had a perfect alibi and not one person they knew ever susopected anyone.
4. Not one security guard, mainintence man, janitor, CCTV scanner, worker, or otherwise saw anything in either tower as they were being rigged with demolitions as they claim it was a controlled demo.
5. The timing was so precise that the terrorists who flew the planes into the builings and the demo team were perfectly coordinated to where and when this was going to occur, yet there is no record of this.
6. Ted Olson, the Solicitor General of the USA was in on this CT since his wife was on the plane that hit the pentagon. So he must be in on this too no?
7. Not one person ever had second thoughts about carrying out the plot and ever backed out and went to authorities or ever said anything.
8. Not one person in the chain of command to Bush had any issue with this since they relayed the info to him right? Who? Some secret cell phone in the middle of the night told Bush about this?
9. someone murdered the 190 people on the plane that never hit the pentagon and not only were the bodies disposed of somehwere,but the plane had to land somewhere and that too was disposed of without a trace.
Do you see how ridiculous this gets when you get into actual reality? These are questions none of the CT'ers want to discuss.
If they can answer them and convince me of a credible CT that makes sense, fine lets discuss it, but the above questions have never been discussed or answered to my satisfaction to take much of the wacked out shit seriously.
-
there is no comprehension at all. You would think the longer away from the event the more truth would come out, that's usually what happens, people speak, documents get released, etc etc. the reverse has happened the case against these loose change loonies has gotten stronger.
-
tony, you obviously haven't done your research on this... the hole size is some loose change part 2, entry level shit.
It's so funny that people can shit on 911 questions when they dont know jack shit about it lol...
And what exactly constitutes "advanced" research on this CT? Farmer's analysis of light and shadows relating to Sgt. Lagasse?? ::)
Or perhaps it's just more of you CT'rs desperately wanting to depict yourselves as being "in the know".
yawn. if you want to learn more, there are people with phds who can explain the shit way better than me.
i have no clue who is behind what... But i do agree with the 911 commissioners who called their own investigation 'a whitewash' and have called for a better invetigation.
But hey, maybe you know more than they do. I don't claim to. But you do, I guess?
Ah...now the commissioners are honest? But wait, a whole part of the CT is that the commission itself is in on the conspiracy. Afterall, members like Kean, Hamilton, Zelikow are supposedly Bush puppets who helped cover everything up. So they helped cover everything up, but since they found some aspects of the investigation troubling (with regards to getting data from other gov't agencies), that makes them credible?
Which is it? Are they part of the grand plot or not? Or is it just more convenient to apply a CT when it fits your needs and dismiss it when it doesn't?
-
240 id like to hear you thoughts on the vids of the loose change guys and the popular mechnics dude and the 9/11 debunker...
-
yawn, we've been thru this shit 1000 times dude. pointless waste of time. i feel like i'm arguing with a 5 year old about santa. you believe what you believe, let's leave it at that.
-
Care to answer my concerns.
-
yawn, we've been thru this shit 1000 times dude. pointless waste of time. i feel like i'm arguing with a 5 year old about santa. you believe what you believe, let's leave it at that.
I havent been through it 1000 times...this is the first ive heard of the hole, cell phones etc...so please give me your thoughts on the rebuttles from popular mechanics and the other gentleman
-
well, then you missed the 4+ years of me and cav22 and berserker(hugo) and others going rounds over and over on this. Drawing diagrams, debating until 4 am. In the end, we didn't change much of anything, and I think we all realized it's not worth the time to debate it. we're going to believe what we're going to believe.
So if you really don't know about the hole size differnce, the lack of wing imprint, and most importantly the perfeectly round hole slashed thru 3 outer rings of the pentagon followed by a big object carried out under a blue tarp, then do your own research. Google is full of site devoted to pointing out oddities in the official story, with plenty of sites to mock those that point it out.
You can believe whatever you please. I can tell you this... RARE is the person who has spent a few hours looking at the 911 Qs that doesn't believe something stinks. Yes, you'll have getbiggers saying "i've read it ALL, and none of it makes sense...". Well, they're full of it. They can't tell you five of the most basic Qs about 911. But they claim to have read them all.
A lot of people in our govt believe the story stinks. A whole lot of people around the world believe it. Are they all loony? maybe. I guess you'll have to do your own research and reach your own conclusions. Good luck with it... really man. I don't have time to argue the stuff anymore, but I would hope, like any topic, you'd research it before just dismissing it as crazy nonsense by a bunch of Bush haters. Remember - I voted for Bush twice and Dole, and I hated clinton with a passion. I tried to start a fight with some prick who said inside job. When I looked at the info to prove him wrong... well... I went from being the loudest bush supporter quite the obama kneepadder... didnt ya ever wonder why? lol Good luck man.
-
Sam... so where did all the people who died on the plane go??
They invented their identities decades ago to make certain there would be traceable accounts of their lives to give basis for their "deaths" aboard a plane that never flew that day.
It's all there, people have PhDs.
-
well, then you missed the 4+ years of me and cav22 and berserker(hugo) and others going rounds over and over on this. Drawing diagrams, debating until 4 am. In the end, we didn't change much of anything, and I think we all realized it's not worth the time to debate it. we're going to believe what we're going to believe.
So if you really don't know about the hole size differnce, the lack of wing imprint, and most importantly the perfeectly round hole slashed thru 3 outer rings of the pentagon followed by a big object carried out under a blue tarp, then do your own research. Google is full of site devoted to pointing out oddities in the official story, with plenty of sites to mock those that point it out.
You can believe whatever you please. I can tell you this... RARE is the person who has spent a few hours looking at the 911 Qs that doesn't believe something stinks. Yes, you'll have getbiggers saying "i've read it ALL, and none of it makes sense...". Well, they're full of it. They can't tell you five of the most basic Qs about 911. But they claim to have read them all.
A lot of people in our govt believe the story stinks. A whole lot of people around the world believe it. Are they all loony? maybe. I guess you'll have to do your own research and reach your own conclusions. Good luck with it... really man. I don't have time to argue the stuff anymore, but I would hope, like any topic, you'd research it before just dismissing it as crazy nonsense by a bunch of Bush haters. Remember - I voted for Bush twice and Dole, and I hated clinton with a passion. I tried to start a fight with some prick who said inside job. When I looked at the info to prove him wrong... well... I went from being the loudest bush supporter quite the obama kneepadder... didnt ya ever wonder why? lol Good luck man.
my problem like 333's is that you dont have a credible story all you have are "oddities" that occur "oddities" that can be explained by others even if you dont buy that explanation. What, who, why?
I just spent 30 mins listening to those vids and I gotta tell you the loose change dudes come out on the short end of that stick, did you watch those videos 240?
you see you have to have an objective view point going in many ct'ers dont they are looking for something to believe in and they find it even if there are explanations for them. The loose change guys obviously arent objective while the popular mechanics guys is obviously simply stating what they found and what it points to.
p.s why did you write beserker(hugo)? you think huggy has a gimmick?
-
all the proof you need that 9/11 wasn't a bomb or internal attack is with this simple sentence. You are all still alive. Do you really think a government that would kill thousands of it's own people wouldn't then kill the maker of loose change, the conspiracy theorists online, the people talking out publicly etc. They would kill each and every one of them that live in the united states and potentially abroad. Make it look like a 'car jacking' or drug deal gone bad end of story no more 'loose change'.
:o [taking kc off screwball list] :)
-
Also in addition none of the ct'ers can answer the questions posed to them? all you say is that something smells fishy well have you 240 looked at the explanations of the things that you call fishy?
-
Look, I love a CT as much as anyone else, but what has put forth so far is embarassingly bad and incoherent. I have said from day 1 and the CT'ers can't accept it - for any part of the CT to be true, the entire thing has to be true. So lets say for example they are able to prove the pentagon part was shady, they then also have to explain everything else for the CT to be true. Now granted the official story probably not full since it was never really told to avoid the negligence of the many levels of govt in failing to catch these bums beforehand, but negligence is not the same thing as a CT.
There are so many holes in the CT's put forth that the whole thing collapses like a house of cards so easily I would think after 10 years the CT'ers could at least come up with something by now.
Never anything on:
1. Who did it?
Who do you think did it? Was it Osama Bin Laden? A man who has not been formally charged with 911 because the FBI lacks suffcient info? I mean they spent a trillion dollars "looking" for him because of 911 but are not sure he did it. Would you spend that much money looking for someone that you are not convinced did it??!! Heck in that case they also don't know who did it!
2. How did they do it?
Well let me ask you this. Silverstein admitted that they pulled the plug on WTC7. Obviously they did not pull it down with a wrecking ball and apparently nobody saw them rig explosives. Well we know the building fell at the speed of gravity which means all columns at the base were severed simultaneously and provided NO RESISTANCE to the upper floors coming down. He tells you they pulled it. What do you think he meant by that? That Spiderman pulled it for them with his webs???
3. When did they plan it?
How would anyone know when a secretive group of criminals planned anything in secrecy? That's like asking me who were you thinking of when you jerked off? I have no idea. I would venture that they planned it in the past 10 years but definately not during World War 2 or 80,000 years ago.
4. How did they cover it up?
Through the Media. 99.99999999% of the World Population saw what happened on 911 via MEDIA: TV, Internet (which failed because of bandwidth contraints) and Newspapers. Yes they "saw" it "almost" live. Who here knows if the footage was realtime or had a 10 minute delay? A very small percentage were in the vicinity of the impact zones when they occured. And you know what we have evidence on camera of "no-plane" witnesses. These people were there, claimed not to see planes fly into the WTC and some of them have mysteriously died or committed suicide. So now anyone that questions 911 is dismissed as crazy because how could they cover it up if so many people witnessed it. But how many people really witnessed it? 333 did you physically see the planes fly into WTC or Pentagon? Or did you see video images from the MEDIA? There is a smoke trail and where there is smoke there is fire.
5. Why did they do it?
Why do criminals commit a crime? Perhaps because they could not invent the light bulb or the car?? There are many reasons for why useless criminals exist: greed, stupidity, malice, decadence, make your pick.
Geez you CT'ers, at least come up with something decent.
Face it this thing stinks. Please debunk the videos.
-
I just read a book called the Survivors Club and one of the guys in there who worked in the towers said he saw the plane coming that hit the building. Isd he lying?
What about the few hundred people on those planes? Are their families lying?
Like I said, there are problemswith the official story, I agree, however, the CT theorioes put forth make no sense whatsoever when you take into accout real world logistics and the fact that the govt is an incompetent mess at almost everything.
-
I just read a book called the Survivors Club and one of the guys in there who worked in the towers said he saw the plane coming that hit the building. Isd he lying?
What about the few hundred people on those planes? Are their families lying?
Like I said, there are problemswith the official story, I agree, however, the CT theorioes put forth make no sense whatsoever when you take into accout real world logistics and the fact that the govt is an incompetent mess at almost everything.
People are put into witness protection programs every week. They can make people "appear" and "dissappear" all day long. I don't personally know the families of the "plane" victims so they could be "actors" for all I know. Paying off a few hundred actors to keep quiet is not that hard for these fuckers. Perhaps not even that many.
Now REAL people lost family in WTC and Pentagon no doubts about that. Those were REAL people jumping out of the buildings which makes it fucking disgusting to even think that these evil bastards could come up with such a fucked up scheme.
And when they come clean they would be labelled as crazy anyway or somehow commit suicide because of despair. yeah anything is possible once you accept the fact that you are breathing air through your lungs on a small planet in a giant galaxy in a massive Universe. The thought of life on earth is much more far fetched than believing that 911 was a lie.
-
So if the Owner of the tower could pull WT7 with the flip of a switch via a controlled demolition...
What makes you think he couldn't do it to the other buildings as well?
Some things just don't make sense..
The truth lies somewhere between the CT'ers and the others.
-
They were taken into a field and secretely murdered somewhere.
Even the then Solicitor General Ted Olson, the top lawyer for the US Govt was in on it to since his wife was on that plane.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
or they could just agree to disapear and take on a new identity
just ct'n
-
"p.s why did you write beserker(hugo)? "
Hugo used to go by the name berserker way back in the day. you missed some great debates here.
-
Who: The illuminati.
How: Using evil spirits and then systematically eating everyone on both planes in a secret satanic worship ritual during the annual bilderberg meeting in Europe.
Why: Because why does a secret group of criminals do anything?
Where+ When : Planned at the Counsel of Foreign Relations over the course of two months. Also, Osama Bin Laden doesnt really exist. The illuminati superimposed an arab man with a beard into several pieces of news footage and manipulated/ created a voice to fool everyone into believing the illuminati was not to blame.
Ok-- That concludes the dumbunking of all 911 myths forever. The illuminati did it. They also invested all of their money in gold, so after the alleged terror attacks occured, they tripled their money. Then after convincing everyone 911 was an act of international terror, they recieved billions more in government contracts. The twin towers were actually destroyed two uranium core wind machines that was placed in the lower level parking garages of both towers. The planes actually hitting the towers never happened. It was advanced CGI which fooled everybody. The illuminati owns hollywood, so they have access to this technology.
-
it's so stupid it's almost unbelievable that two retards can post bullsh8t theories find a minority of "experts" and take hearsay statements ::) then claim it's truth. What fools. I honestly can not fathom believing this is an inside job, i can't understand the delusion you would have to be under to take such an idea with all the evidence pointing otherwise and skew it to what you believe. Only in this day and age where information is so free and available do we have so many idiots following each other. the downside of information exchange i guess.
The old saying if you throw enough bullsh!t against a wall some of it eventually sticks. This is where the "drive bye media" term came from. They throw out accusations and leave it up to the victim to proove them wrong. But, I thought it was the other way around?? I guess not.
-
And what exactly constitutes "advanced" research on this CT? Farmer's analysis of light and shadows relating to Sgt. Lagasse?? ::)
Or perhaps it's just more of you CT'rs desperately wanting to depict yourselves as being "in the know".
Ah...now the commissioners are honest? But wait, a whole part of the CT is that the commission itself is in on the conspiracy. Afterall, members like Kean, Hamilton, Zelikow are supposedly Bush puppets who helped cover everything up. So they helped cover everything up, but since they found some aspects of the investigation troubling (with regards to getting data from other gov't agencies), that makes them credible?
Which is it? Are they part of the grand plot or not? Or is it just more convenient to apply a CT when it fits your needs and dismiss it when it doesn't?
But people like you call Bush a complete idiot?? So what is it? Is he an idiot, or did he perpetrate the bigeet coverup and conspiracy of our time?? I think the person who is the idiot are the CT's. Oh yeah, I got a call from Elvis yesterday... he's hanging with Jimmy Morrison and they want to start a dead celeb union with the help of Jimmy Hoffa... ::)
-
Who: The illuminati.
How: Using evil spirits and then systematically eating everyone on both planes in a secret satanic worship ritual during the annual bilderberg meeting in Europe.
Why: Because why does a secret group of criminals do anything?
Where+ When : Planned at the Counsel of Foreign Relations over the course of two months. Also, Osama Bin Laden doesnt really exist. The illuminati superimposed an arab man with a beard into several pieces of news footage and manipulated/ created a voice to fool everyone into believing the illuminati was not to blame.
Ok-- That concludes the dumbunking of all 911 myths forever. The illuminati did it. They also invested all of their money in gold, so after the alleged terror attacks occured, they tripled their money. Then after convincing everyone 911 was an act of international terror, they recieved billions more in government contracts. The twin towers were actually destroyed two uranium core wind machines that was placed in the lower level parking garages of both towers. The planes actually hitting the towers never happened. It was advanced CGI which fooled everybody. The illuminati owns hollywood, so they have access to this technology.
You forgot the Jews and Mossad in there. I'm sure you can lump them into the Illuminati, though.
666 - Mark of the BEAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
\m/ \m/
-
well, then you missed the 4+ years of me and cav22 and berserker(hugo) and others going rounds over and over on this. Drawing diagrams, debating until 4 am. In the end, we didn't change much of anything, and I think we all realized it's not worth the time to debate it. we're going to believe what we're going to believe.
What is your background to be such an expert on this?
So if you really don't know about the hole size differnce, the lack of wing imprint, and most importantly the perfeectly round hole slashed thru 3 outer rings of the pentagon followed by a big object carried out under a blue tarp, then do your own research. Google is full of site devoted to pointing out oddities in the official story, with plenty of sites to mock those that point it out. The lack of a wing imprint makes sense due to the construction of the pentagon. For example, they tested a nuclear containment vessel in France many years back by flying 707 aircraft into it via remote control to sim. an accident or attack. The test conducted showed that this aircraft could not take down the concrete and reinforced steel building, some 12 feet thick is places, except create a small 6" hole through it at the center of impact. There was no "wing imprint", or anything of the sort you are sooo dying to see. So, in your mind, does this suggest the french shot it with a missle?
can believe whatever you please. I can tell you this... RARE is the person who has spent a few hours looking at the 911 Qs that doesn't believe something stinks. Yes, you'll have getbiggers saying "i've read it ALL, and none of it makes sense...". Well, they're full of it. They can't tell you five of the most basic Qs about 911. But they claim to have read them all.
What sinks is the time spent on this issue when NOTHING TRULY suggests an inside job. This is a slap in the face to all those lost in this tragi event comitted by islamic thugs. But, you wiill believe whatever you want.
A lot of people in our govt believe the story stinks. A whole lot of people around the world believe it. Are they all loony? maybe. I guess you'll have to do your own research and reach your own conclusions. Good luck with it... really man. I don't have time to argue the stuff anymore, but I would hope, like any topic, you'd research it before just dismissing it as crazy nonsense by a bunch of Bush haters. Remember - I voted for Bush twice and Dole, and I hated clinton with a passion. I tried to start a fight with some prick who said inside job. When I looked at the info to prove him wrong... well... I went from being the loudest bush supporter quite the obama kneepadder... didnt ya ever wonder why? lol Good luck man.
That is 2% of the country believe in your hoax. Sorry... ::)
-
Until some of the 911 CT'ers like 240 can explain how logistically their theories could be pulled off, I just shake my head that in 10 years they still dont have anything new.
-
The fact that they rotate among a dozen changing theories, all equally absurd, makes them lose all credibility with me. Are we supposed to take someone seriously when they claimed that gigantic holograms were used? I mean, come on. ::)
Tonymctones liveleak link does a great job debunking the Pentagon bullshit. Unless all those aircraft parts were planted. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
The fact that they rotate among a dozen changing theories makes them lose all credibility with me.
And most Americans.
BTW, Who is the cutie dancing away on your signature??
-
And most Americans.
BTW, Who is the cutie dancing away on your signature??
Shay Laren. There are lot of pics and a few videos of her floating around the internet. I think she robbed Hugo Chavez at a photoshoot or something, too.
-
Shay Laren. There are lot of pics and a few videos of her floating around the internet. I think she robbed Hugo Chavez at a photoshoot or something, too.
aahhh... I will have to take a peek..
-
my problem like 333's is that you dont have a credible story all you have are "oddities" that occur "oddities" that can be explained by others even if you dont buy that explanation. What, who, why?
I just spent 30 mins listening to those vids and I gotta tell you the loose change dudes come out on the short end of that stick, did you watch those videos 240?
you see you have to have an objective view point going in many ct'ers dont they are looking for something to believe in and they find it even if there are explanations for them. The loose change guys obviously arent objective while the popular mechanics guys is obviously simply stating what they found and what it points to.
p.s why did you write beserker(hugo)? you think huggy has a gimmick?
I heard they are changing their name to "loose screws"... baa dum dum!! ;D
-
Regarding the 'pull it' video, it's been acknowledged that the sound byte is taken out of context. I.E. what the whole discussion was about. Pull it refers to firefighters being pulled out of an unsurvivable building, the it is the fire fighting team. Gosh these people have such stupid evidence. Like the guys explained most of the CT comes from directly after when people don't know sh*t, don't know what they saw, heard etc. Oh one guy said it was a bomb but thousands say it was a plane, well lets believe the one guy ::)
-
since no one answered me ... why isn't there more outrage on the pentagon hiding the surveillance tapes? if there was nothin to hide then they'd show it. this should be the starting point ... what was on the tapes. once we know that we can go forward. until then this is a fucking pissing match >:(
Maybe because it shows a severe vulnerability in the structure when you hit it with an airplane of that size AND they do not want this to get in the hands of terrorists?? It sounds logical, no? But that's just me. ::)
-
Regarding the 'pull it' video, it's been acknowledged that the sound byte is taken out of context. I.E. what the whole discussion was about. Pull it refers to firefighters being pulled out of an unsurvivable building, the it is the fire fighting team. Gosh these people have such stupid evidence. Like the guys explained most of the CT comes from directly after when people don't know sh*t, don't know what they saw, heard etc. Oh one guy said it was a bomb but thousands say it was a plane, well lets believe the one guy ::)
You beat me to it. I watched Silverstein's interview on TV. But of course, the CTr's will never believe him because he too is part of the conspiracy...
-
Yes the surveilance photos show an explosion. Nobody is saying there wasn't an explosion.
(http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020309/wld4.jpg)
However the surveilance photos / videos don't prove that a plane hit the building at all. Can you make out a plane?
Seriously you are an idiot if you believe a plane crashed into the building. Did you look at the video at the beginning of the thread? How the hell could a plane make such a small hole? Don't tell me it's because the Pentagon walls were indestructible. If it was a plane traveling at high velocity it would have left a huge opening. The opening only became larger after a few minutes when the wall collapsed.
You and everyone that believe this is what happened are being made the bitches of the elites that planned this terror attack. How does it feel to be someone's bitch? Do you like to be the ape in the room? The people that perpetrated this crime are laughing at you in your face and your mind has been raped by this lie. Go on and believe it you would not know the truth if it was right in front of you. How anyone could even argue that a plane was anywhere near the Pentagon at this point is simply ridiculous.
The video wont if it captures stills and not rolling video. With a plane flyingat that speed it is highly possible to miss the image. However, there were many eyewitnessess on the highways that saw the plan flying towards the Pentagon. Are they lying?? Seeing a UFO?? a MISSLE WITH WINGS??
-
My problem with the CT's is that they are not even plausible in a real world situatuion.
Controlled Demo? Ok - who did it - a private company or a govt? If a private company how did they buy the explosives without a permit? Did none of the workers think this was insane and bolt away and go to authorities? No one saw them doing this? no janitors, no security, no workers, no one? No security cameras, no cell phones, nothing?
-
Yes the surveilance photos show an explosion. Nobody is saying there wasn't an explosion.
(http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020309/wld4.jpg)
However the surveilance photos / videos don't prove that a plane hit the building at all. Can you make out a plane?
Seriously you are an idiot if you believe a plane crashed into the building. Did you look at the video at the beginning of the thread? How the hell could a plane make such a small hole? Don't tell me it's because the Pentagon walls were indestructible. If it was a plane traveling at high velocity it would have left a huge opening. The opening only became larger after a few minutes when the wall collapsed.
You and everyone that believe this is what happened are being made the bitches of the elites that planned this terror attack. How does it feel to be someone's bitch? Do you like to be the ape in the room? The people that perpetrated this crime are laughing at you in your face and your mind has been raped by this lie. Go on and believe it you would not know the truth if it was right in front of you. How anyone could even argue that a plane was anywhere near the Pentagon at this point is simply ridiculous.
YOU WROTE: Did you look at the video at the beginning of the thread? How the hell could a plane make such a small hole? Don't tell me it's because the Pentagon walls were indestructible. If it was a plane traveling at high velocity it would have left a huge opening. The opening only became larger after a few minutes when the wall collapsed.
This shows me where your ignrance comes from as you know nothing about structural engineering, or anything of the technical field whatsoever. Thus, explains why this nonsense has lived for 10 years in the feeble minds of the ct'rs.
-
My problem with the CT's is that they are not even plausible in a real world situatuion.
Controlled Demo? Ok - who did it - a private company or a govt? If a private company how did they buy the explosives without a permit? Did none of the workers think this was insane and bolt away and go to authorities? No one saw them doing this? no janitors, no security, no workers, no one? No security cameras, no cell phones, nothing?
It's what they want to believe. There is no changing their minds. It's the big goverment conspiracy that MUST have happened. They don't want to let facts get in the way of thir story.
-
The govt screwed up wars, katrina, the oil spill, the borders, the xmas day hijackers, the times square bomber, etc etc.
Yet, they brilliantly somehow pulled this off without any trace whatsoever? ::) ::)
Here is another gem that 240 refuses to acknowledge:
KSM has admitted to being the mastermind behind this. What better way to add insult to injury and bring down the US govt than to prove himself that the US Govt did it? Surely, if he or his attorneys believed that they would profess their innocence, demand discovery and prove the govt did it in court.
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=618_1252533350&comment_order=newest_first
It's funny how this video has been ignored by every CTer in this thread. Why is that? Oh that's right, because it's not refutable. ::)
-
That video was really good.
-
That video was really good.
I'd love to hear a plausible explanation for why all those pictures are fake.
-
The govt screwed up wars, katrina, the oil spill, the borders, the xmas day hijackers, the times square bomber, etc etc.
Yet, they brilliantly somehow pulled this off without any trace whatsoever? ::) ::)
Here is another gem that 240 refuses to acknowledge:
KSM has admitted to being the mastermind behind this. What better way to add insult to injury and bring down the US govt than to prove himself that the US Govt did it? Surely, if he or his attorneys believed that they would profess their innocence, demand discovery and prove the govt did it in court.
Good point. The gov't can't get Cash For Clunkers correct and we expect them to pull this off??
-
So I guess the airline company is in on the CT too right?
To believe the 9/11 CT you literally have to include probably 200 - 500 people.
-
So I guess the airline company is in on the CT too right?
To believe the 9/11 CT you literally have to include probably 200 - 500 people.
No. Just 3 to 4 brain cells.
-
But people like you call Bush a complete idiot?? So what is it? Is he an idiot, or did he perpetrate the bigeet coverup and conspiracy of our time?? I think the person who is the idiot are the CT's. Oh yeah, I got a call from Elvis yesterday... he's hanging with Jimmy Morrison and they want to start a dead celeb union with the help of Jimmy Hoffa... ::)
I don't believe I've ever called Bush a complete idiot even though I wasn't fond of his presidency. And I'm arguing against the CT, not for. Might want to reread my post.
-
I don't believe I've ever called Bush a complete idiot even though I wasn't fond of his presidency. And I'm arguing against the CT, not for. Might want to reread my post.
My bad. I misread your post. Too many of these CT's on this to dice them up.
-
My bad. I misread your post. Too many of these CT's on this to dice them up.
No prob, the CT'rs will just change their stories - I mean unanswered questions that they pose as facts - tomorrow.
-
Did you ever see this post by Ozmo?
I'm just asking for concrete posts, good stuff.
But hey, if its too much for you never mind then. Refer to this:
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
-
Notice how the thread starter dont dare argue with us on this?
-
This shows me where your ignrance comes from as you know nothing about structural engineering, or anything of the technical field whatsoever. Thus, explains why this nonsense has lived for 10 years in the feeble minds of the ct'rs.
Bullshit. If you know so much about structural engineering then explain why an object the size of the plane would leave a hole much smaller than itself with the surrounding wall smooth and showing little signs of impact? I am amazed at how fucking stupid you'd have to be to believe it. You claim to be a "structural expert"?? How's that? What's your background?
Again explain it. If you give a plausible explanation and convince me please do.
In the case of the WTC we see a plane cut into the building like a knife through butter. It is cutting through steel columns. Now in the Pentagon example it just bounces of the building and the nose leaves a car-sized hole? There is no way in hell that a plane would not have made a huge opening in the wall equal to or greater than it's footprint when travelling at 500 mph.
-
Did you watch the liveleak video?
-
The govt screwed up wars, katrina, the oil spill, the borders, the xmas day hijackers, the times square bomber, etc etc.
Yet, they brilliantly somehow pulled this off without any trace whatsoever? ::) ::)
Here is another gem that 240 refuses to acknowledge:
KSM has admitted to being the mastermind behind this. What better way to add insult to injury and bring down the US govt than to prove himself that the US Govt did it? Surely, if he or his attorneys believed that they would profess their innocence, demand discovery and prove the govt did it in court.
When you are the one controlling the investigation then the outcome would pretty obviously be in your favor. The fact that millions of people are questioning the government's involvement hardly points to a successfull deception in my mind. Nobody is receiving any financial gain by questioning government involvement. It is done in a quest for truth.
-
I'm just trying to relate real world shit to the claimed CT's. To me the controlled demolition theory ignores the reality of what it takes to actually rig two building like that up under the watchful eye of workers, janitores, security, CCTV etc and no one saw anything? No one said anything?
The incompetent boobs in govt cant even keep track of the times square guy they had under their eye yet they are going pull off something so secretiv as this?
For fucks sake, we cant even contain an oil spill, evactuate people ahead of a hurricane, etc.
I guess its all how you approach things.
-
Regarding the 'pull it' video, it's been acknowledged that the sound byte is taken out of context. I.E. what the whole discussion was about. Pull it refers to firefighters being pulled out of an unsurvivable building, the it is the fire fighting team. Gosh these people have such stupid evidence. Like the guys explained most of the CT comes from directly after when people don't know sh*t, don't know what they saw, heard etc. Oh one guy said it was a bomb but thousands say it was a plane, well lets believe the one guy ::)
First of all where were the massive flames in WTC 7? The Mandarin Hotel in Beijing had much more sever fire damage and it never even collapsed.
No building in history has collapsed naturally at the speed of gravity because of fire damage. Do you understand the concept? For the building to collapse at the speed of gravity all the columns at the base had to completely crumble at once. It would have collapsed in stages otherwise.
Silverstein's words of "pull it" means exactly that. They accelerated the collapse by physically bringing it down. Apparently explosive residue was found at ground zero.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html)
-
To those that say Bush was too much of an idiot to plan 911. Who even says he planned it??!! After all we know leaders are puppets. He would be complacent but definately not the mastermind. Please give me a break we all know he was / is a moron.
-
The video wont if it captures stills and not rolling video. With a plane flyingat that speed it is highly possible to miss the image. However, there were many eyewitnessess on the highways that saw the plan flying towards the Pentagon. Are they lying?? Seeing a UFO?? a MISSLE WITH WINGS??
Yeah right it was a plane. The video is convincing proof. Even you admit you can't make out a plane because it is highly possible to miss the image. How many eyewitnesses were there? Please post videos of interviews. If you can find 10 I would not be impressed since 10 actors are not hard to find.
-
hahahah at the very least, we did shoot down that plane. The scene was 8 miles wide for a plane that nosedived?
haha even MICHELLE MALKIN wrote an article saying the penn crash site was BS, that it was probably shot down.
Then you have Rummy admitting it on video there...
At the VERY least, that part is a big lie.
-
::) if you're a 9/11 cter i have a bridge to sell you.
p.s. it's for you to jump off.
-
"I change my theory every time my current one gets refuted. Why won't you guys believe me? You're all fucking sheep. I have google, I read that shady website. I'm in the know, damnit! RAGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEE" ::)
-
Bullshit. If you know so much about structural engineering then explain why an object the size of the plane would leave a hole much smaller than itself with the surrounding wall smooth and showing little signs of impact? I am amazed at how fucking stupid you'd have to be to believe it. You claim to be a "structural expert"?? How's that? What's your background?
Again explain it. If you give a plausible explanation and convince me please do.
In the case of the WTC we see a plane cut into the building like a knife through butter. It is cutting through steel columns. Now in the Pentagon example it just bounces of the building and the nose leaves a car-sized hole? There is no way in hell that a plane would not have made a huge opening in the wall equal to or greater than it's footprint when travelling at 500 mph.
First, a little about myself... I have a mechanical engineering degree from one of the better science colleges on the east coast. I have a minor in industrial engineering, with a focus on structrual design. I work for a garment manufacturer in midtown Manhattan designing floor plans and head the facilities and security group. I'm also 39, like long walks on the beach, cooking with my wife.,.. etc.. hahaha. ;D
Answer your QUESTION IS Easy. Density. Concrete is some 12 feet thick in places in the pentagon, reinforced by rebar and I believe a layer of either lead or steel plating TO SHIELD high level gov't people in the event of a nuclear attack. You may not know that fact because it is not exactly broadcast out there. As I stated before my father in law worked there in the 60s. It is layered as one solid object in simple terms. This building was constructed during the cold war.
The WTC was a hollow steel structure designed to act like two cylinders, One inside othe other. This was because they wanted an open floor concept; no interior columns. This design, one that was very strong, put the steel columns on the outside of the structure, with the center "tube" housing the stairways and elevator shafts. Sort of like a celery stalk. Anyone (like me) who has had to design floor plans for offices and distribution centers (in Long Island City Queens for example) :D ), within existing structures know the inherent obstructions interior columns pose. Now, the first mistake you are making is assuming the two buildings are the same, or function the same. I know this by your statement above: "is no way in hell that a plane would not have made a huge opening in the wall equal to or greater than it's footprint when travelling at 500 mph." You are taking this as if they are both the same building. in terms of structure, freedom of movement, and design requirements. The Pentagon was designed as the military nerve center for the USA so it will have inherent design characteristics for security. The WTC was designed as a state of the art office tower and not designed to fend off an attack. Although they did design it to withstand a direct hit from a 707. But your comparo is apples to oranges.
Getting to the small hole... The plane generally hit nose-cone first. This would be considered a point load. Thus, the impact from the plane was at its most severe at the center of the impact. This was at the greatest point of absorbson; Fo = mass x velocity. The wings, ralative to their density v. the concrete structure basically bounced off, and disintegrated due to the velociity is impacted the concrete. This building is just simply designed to take a direct hit. The WTC, although designed to take a direct hit from a much smaller aircraft at lower speeds, did a great job at holding up so some 20k people could get out. Then the fire took over, weakening columns, and collapsed top down. I know it may be too difficult to understand by someone like you who already made up their minds regardless of any facts that discredit yours.
-
Yeah right it was a plane. The video is convincing proof. Even you admit you can't make out a plane because it is highly possible to miss the image. How many eyewitnesses were there? Please post videos of interviews. If you can find 10 I would not be impressed since 10 actors are not hard to find.
This is just exhausting.
Guy... When you have a video that films either on motion sensor, or clip-by-clip as it shows in all of your video "evidence" posted, the velocity of the plane could easily have been too fast for the video to capture it. Anyone who works in this industry can tell you you can have lost footage if the object is either too fast, or the settings on the DVR recorder was too long between clips.
Again, the 200 or so people on the plane... where did they go??
-
First of all where were the massive flames in WTC 7? The Mandarin Hotel in Beijing had much more sever fire damage and it never even collapsed.
No building in history has collapsed naturally at the speed of gravity because of fire damage. Do you understand the concept? For the building to collapse at the speed of gravity all the columns at the base had to completely crumble at once. It would have collapsed in stages otherwise.
Silverstein's words of "pull it" means exactly that. They accelerated the collapse by physically bringing it down. Apparently explosive residue was found at ground zero.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html)
This is the most idiotic statement I have ever read in my mife from someone who probably sits in his underwear in front of the computer yanking on his pecker to these vids. Guy, you have no expertise to even come close to anyting you are saying in this thread. Go do your homework please.
-
To those that say Bush was too much of an idiot to plan 911. Who even says he planned it??!! After all we know leaders are puppets. He would be complacent but definately not the mastermind. Please give me a break we all know he was / is a moron.
Man, you get stranger by the minute...
-
hahaha severe ownage fu*k off 9/11 ct trolls. run along now.
-
The liveleak video is pretty devastating.
-
The liveleak video is pretty devastating.
Yeah. But the true problem is the ct'rs are soo enthrawled in their beliefs they can not, or will not discuss the REMOTE possibility they could be wrong. I don't understand it, you don't either. They (at least most) don't have a financial stake in it unless you have a book to sell.. It's sort of like the Global Warming nuts who insist we are the cause for the global changes irregardless of the book cooking.
-
No prob, the CT'rs will just change their stories - I mean unanswered questions that they pose as facts - tomorrow.
Yeah, and what is interesting is what someone wrote on here about Silverstein and that they know EXACTLY what he meant about when he said "pull it". Meanwhile he was interviewed explaining he meant that to "pull it" was to pull all the rescuers out.... But that doesn't matter to your CT'r
-
Answer your QUESTION IS Easy. Density. Concrete is some 12 feet thick in places in the pentagon, reinforced by rebar and I believe a layer of either lead or steel plating TO SHIELD high level gov't people in the event of a nuclear attack.
The exterior wall where the impact occurred was not 12 feet thick. That is a bullshit statement. Perhaps in the vaults they are that thick but not the exterior skin that has windows. We are talking about the exterior wall.
Second I have a degree in Architecture and have worked in the field for over 10 years. The steel columns in WTC were not hollow like extruded aluminum sections. They were massive solid steel columns. The plane wings supposedly cut through those steel columns like a knife through butter.
Yet at the Pentagon the glass in the windows around the small hole were not even shattered. How the fuck is that possible? The plane has wings that would surely have destroyed at least the windows.
You are a moron for even fighting this. Give up.
-
this argument is pointless, really.
-
This is the most idiotic statement I have ever read in my mife from someone who probably sits in his underwear in front of the computer yanking on his pecker to these vids. Guy, you have no expertise to even come close to anyting you are saying in this thread. Go do your homework please.
The only way you counter my argument is with an insult. That does not really impress me as far as your intellect goes. If you can provide an intelligent counter argument go ahead. I would welcome it. But personal insults makes you look like a moron.
-
But personal insults makes you look like a moron.
::) Keep owning yourself, keep showing that intellect.
Seriously you are an idiot if you believe a plane crashed into the building.
You and everyone that believe this is what happened are being made the bitches of the elites that planned this terror attack. How does it feel to be someone's bitch? Do you like to be the ape in the room?
It is really you that's a sheep.
I am amazed at how fucking stupid you'd have to be to believe it.
You are a moron for even fighting this. Give up.
-
::) Keep owning yourself, keep showing that intellect.
I am guilty of insults as well I'll concede that. However at least I am providing video archives and arguments along with my insults.
240 is right this argument is pointless we are sitting on opposite sides of the fence.
-
The exterior wall where the impact occurred was not 12 feet thick. That is a bullshit statement. Perhaps in the vaults they are that thick but not the exterior skin that has windows. We are talking about the exterior wall.
Second I have a degree in Architecture and have worked in the field for over 10 years. The steel columns in WTC were not hollow like extruded aluminum sections. They were massive solid steel columns. The plane wings supposedly cut through those steel columns like a knife through butter.
Yet at the Pentagon the glass in the windows around the small hole were not even shattered. How the fuck is that possible? The plane has wings that would surely have destroyed at least the windows.
You are a moron for even fighting this. Give up.
Not true... The density of the concrete, reinforced rebar structure is NOT the same as the steel BOX BEAM structure as the WTC. I stand by what I said; the walls were some 12 feet thick in areas and a minimum of 3 feet in others. The "inner sanctum" is over 20 ft thick. Not to mention that the shear design of the "Pentegon" hence the name suggests it's strength in its shape. Unlike the "MASSIVE steel" construction you claim, The wings "sliced" through these because their connections FAILED at their joints and knocked the beams out!
Here's more silliness - You said: "Yet at the Pentagon the glass in the windows around the small hole were not even shattered. How the fuck is that possible? The plane has wings that would surely have destroyed at least the windows." But a MISSILE hit the Pentagon as you CTer's believe and didn't blow out the windows either??? Who's the fool?
You aren't going to believe this because your mind is made up. I'm not fighting this. You are. And your nonsense BS conspiracy theory charge has been debunked by some of the best engineers in the world who have nothing to gain but to explain what exactly happened. But, you might want to go back to your college and get tuition money back because you failed basic physics.
-
The only way you counter my argument is with an insult. That does not really impress me as far as your intellect goes. If you can provide an intelligent counter argument go ahead. I would welcome it. But personal insults makes you look like a moron.
Here's a thought... Go buy a statics textbook, learn a little bit about calculating the "effective length" of a structural column, take what happened to the wtc and then contact me. This should keep you busy for a few weeks and when you get smacked in the face with facts you really don't want to see, you can then spend another three weeks talking to your buttboy CT'rs and brainstorm how to come up with some more nonsense to proove wrong what you just figured out all on your own.
-
I am guilty of insults as well I'll concede that. However at least I am providing video archives and arguments along with my insults.
240 is right this argument is pointless we are sitting on opposite sides of the fence.
Yup. You and the rest of the 2% who believe this foolishness.
-
quad and 240 have either of you watched the liveleak video or the video of the loose change guys with the pop mechanics guys?
-
quad and 240 have either of you watched the liveleak video or the video of the loose change guys with the pop mechanics guys?
Nooooooooooooooooo... :D :)
-
It's funny how this video has been ignored by every CTer in this thread. Why is that? Oh that's right, because it's not refutable. ::)
hummmm... looks like some windows are blown out, some airplane debris are found, some engine, landing gear parts, etc... It goes on.
What say you QuadZilla?
-
Here's another kick in the ass to the CT claims of the "controlled Demolition" nonsense...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=364_1226769148
But I guess MIT was in on the big secret too.... ::) ::)
-
Here's another kick in the ass to the CT claims of the "controlled Demolition" nonsense...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=364_1226769148
But I guess MIT was in on the big secret too.... ::) ::)
The average Getbigger and CTer is smarter than the average MIT scientist. ::)
-
Here's another kick in the ass to the CT claims of the "controlled Demolition" nonsense...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=364_1226769148
But I guess MIT was in on the big secret too.... ::) ::)
Great video. Seriously. Thank you for that.
-
That woman's voice on that video infuriates me. I love how they're incapable of refuting the MIT paper with any hard evidence, just good ol' CT'er speculation.
-
The voice may be stupid, but the clip had very good points about the debris getting show outwards.
-
"Yup. You and the rest of the 2% who believe this foolishness. "
Do you have any actual polls on how many Americans believe we need a new investigation into 911?
Cause the ones i've seen are sure above 2%. Hell, Sarah Palin and Obama have both said they support a second investigation. That's all most people want.
-
"Yup. You and the rest of the 2% who believe this foolishness. "
Do you have any actual polls on how many Americans believe we need a new investigation into 911?
Cause the ones i've seen are sure above 2%. Hell, Sarah Palin and Obama have both said they support a second investigation. That's all most people want.
Wanting "a new investigation" does not mean they think the US govt. caused 9/11. You taking a page out of the SamsonEnterprises book of spin? ::)
You've cycled through a dozen theories and have now zeroed in on a poll that shows people wanting a new investigation because you're incapable of refuting any of your other cockamamie theories. You actually claimed they used holograms at one point. Should you really be taken seriously when you can't even keep your story straight?
-
thanks man.
a new investigation would clear that up. Pearl harbor had 4 investigations. I'm sure we'll see another for 911 eventually.
-
thanks man.
a new investigation would clear that up. Pearl harbor had 4 investigations. I'm sure we'll see another for 911 eventually.
240 i specifically asked you a question and would like an answer...
have you watched the liveleak vido and the one with the loose change guys and the pop mechanics guys?
-
240 i specifically asked you a question and would like an answer...
have you watched the liveleak vido and the one with the loose change guys and the pop mechanics guys?
Of course not. He and douchezilla the "architect" have been avoiding addressing any of those videos for 3+ pages now. They just keep regurgitating the same "you're a sheep" and "this poll shows people want a new investigation" trash.
-
"Yup. You and the rest of the 2% who believe this foolishness. "
Do you have any actual polls on how many Americans believe we need a new investigation into 911?
Cause the ones i've seen are sure above 2%. Hell, Sarah Palin and Obama have both said they support a second investigation. That's all most people want.
It's not the type of investigation you think they want. They want an investigation to ensure this type of an attack doesn't happen again. You want to know if the Gov't blew up the Pentagon and the WTC. Two different viewpoints.
-
shit dude, i dont have time to watch these videos... you shoulda been here 5 years ago when this shit was actually discussed.
anyway, pop mech went on a radio interview and claimed that the fbi had DNA from all 18 hijackers, 24 hours after the attack - that's how they knew who they were. Go find the 18 minute radio interview with the pop mech guys. It was discussed here in depth.
They were asked how the dna was recovered from the towers which were still receiving water hoses at that point - how in the worl they were able to sort out DNA that fast... and they didn't have answers.
they're some non-credible fvcks, in my own opinion. Find that interview and listen. Now, I dont have time to argue point by point with anonymous engineers here... but if you listen to that 18 minute owning of the pop mech guys... i mean, they get cornered so many times, it's insane. They made some of their shit up, plain and simple.
plus the eitor was mike chertoff's cousin...
so anyway, if you want to give them credit, at least here them caught in lies in that radio interview. good times.
-
thanks man.
a new investigation would clear that up. Pearl harbor had 4 investigations. I'm sure we'll see another for 911 eventually.
I'm for 100 investigations if it makes us safer. I don't want a $ spent on conspiracy theories.
-
So his whole argument is built on things like the FBI saying something 24 hours after the event took place? Because, you know, the FBI and other government agencies wouldn't lie to save face or calm down the public, etc, etc. ::)
I guess they need anything to hang onto.
And coming into a thread about 9/11, logging a dozen posts in said thread and then claiming to not have time to watch a 4 minute video is nothing but a cop out.
-
shit dude, i dont have time to watch these videos... you shoulda been here 5 years ago when this shit was actually discussed.
anyway, pop mech went on a radio interview and claimed that the fbi had DNA from all 18 hijackers, 24 hours after the attack - that's how they knew who they were. Go find the 18 minute radio interview with the pop mech guys. It was discussed here in depth.
They were asked how the dna was recovered from the towers which were still receiving water hoses at that point - how in the worl they were able to sort out DNA that fast... and they didn't have answers.
they're some non-credible fvcks, in my own opinion. Find that interview and listen. Now, I dont have time to argue point by point with anonymous engineers here... but if you listen to that 18 minute owning of the pop mech guys... i mean, they get cornered so many times, it's insane. They made some of their shit up, plain and simple.
plus the eitor was mike chertoff's cousin...
so anyway, if you want to give them credit, at least here them caught in lies in that radio interview. good times.
so they are on the list?
and what of the liveleak video?
-
Yup. 240 -watch the two videos.
you have enough time to watch MSNBC all day then you have 15 minutes to watch these two videos.
-
look, unless you hear the pop mech interview where the host tears them a new a-hole, you're going to believe they are credible.
they get caught in a few lies. It's pretty embarassing. They claim to have access to things nobody else saw, which would be illegal of course. They make some claims in the mag that they didn't have evidence for. They were asked questions where their response was, "you know, this is a lot like the holocaust..." to divert attention.
So anyway, unless you have heard that clip, you may give them credibility. I dont wanna bust any bubbles, so keep on praising them as gospel, and those of us who have listened will know they get caught in a lot of lies. cheerio.
-
anyway, fuck this discussion.... i've had it for 5 years and i refused to get sucked back in. most of you sucked dubya til the end, you talked about how qualified palin was, etc etc.
carry on in this ignorance. You have CTs about oil rigs blowing up with zero evidence... yet the long line of Qs about 911 (which you dont actually know), you shit all over.
it's fine... not worth arguing over.
-
So his whole argument is built on things like the FBI saying something 24 hours after the event took place? Because, you know, the FBI and other government agencies wouldn't lie to save face or calm down the public, etc, etc. ::)
I guess they need anything to hang onto.
And coming into a thread about 9/11, logging a dozen posts in said thread and then claiming to not have time to watch a 4 minute video is nothing but a cop out.
Man, your faster than me... I was thinking this same thing until I read it!
-
anyway, fuck this discussion.... i've had it for 5 years and i refused to get sucked back in. most of you sucked dubya til the end, you talked about how qualified palin was, etc etc.
carry on in this ignorance. You have CTs about oil rigs blowing up with zero evidence... yet the long line of Qs about 911 (which you dont actually know), you shit all over.
it's fine... not worth arguing over.
LMAO then stop posting in threads about it fucker...you come in here post then run away when someone post shit that debunks yours saying they arent credible, you havent done your research etc... ::)
if you dont want to talk about it THEN DONT TALK ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!
-
240 is officially done on the 911 CT's
-
::) no one says there aren't questions that still need to be answered but EVERYONE with a brain knows those questions aren't 'was this an inside job' or 'bush did it'
-
::) no one says there aren't questions that still need to be answered but EVERYONE with a brain knows those questions aren't 'was this an inside job' or 'bush did it'
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!
-
in saying that i believe there are some cover up issues relating to what was known and when but those are regarding gross negligence not intent to bomb ones country.
-
in saying that i believe there are some cover up issues relating to what was known and when but those are regarding gross negligence not intent to bomb ones country.
I can agree with that as well
-
well yall bring my name up everytime. i dont start 911 threads too much these days
-
anyway, fuck this discussion.... i've had it for 5 years and i refused to get sucked back in. most of you sucked dubya til the end, you talked about how qualified palin was, etc etc.
carry on in this ignorance. You have CTs about oil rigs blowing up with zero evidence... yet the long line of Qs about 911 (which you dont actually know), you shit all over.
it's fine... not worth arguing over.
Let's see...I'll give you a 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, & 7.
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
-
well yall bring my name up everytime. i dont start 911 threads too much these days
That's horseshit and you know it. You're actually going to try and claim you just don't drop random crap about 911 conspiracies into threads? You like arguing this shit, dare I say you LOVE arguing this shit, and you keep throwing it out in various threads from time to time.
-
That's horseshit and you know it. You're actually going to try and claim you just don't drop random crap about 911 conspiracies into threads? You like arguing this shit, dare I say you LOVE arguing this shit, and you keep throwing it out in various threads from time to time.
exactly same as his palin references...
-
Of course not. He and douchezilla the "architect" have been avoiding addressing any of those videos for 3+ pages now. They just keep regurgitating the same "you're a sheep" and "this poll shows people want a new investigation" trash.
Scrotum: Take a look at this you fucking mongrel...
(http://clintjcl.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/911-pentagon-official-video.gif)
(http://clintjcl.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/911-pentagon-simulation-of-how-the-pentagon-video-should-have-looked-like.gif)
(http://911research.com/essays/pentagon/docs/delmont1.jpg)
(http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/pentcrash.jpg)
-
the walls were some 12 feet thick in areas and a minimum of 3 feet in others. The "inner sanctum" is over 20 ft thick.
So you are saying the outer walls were a minimum 3 feet thick? HAHAHAHA! Look we all know it is the Pentagon but really you think they would have a 3 feet thick outer wall??? Please at most it is 16 = 18 inches thick. If that. More likely it is 12 inches.
Look at the image below. Does the outer wall appear to be 3 feet solid? If you think so you are full of BS.
(http://www.fourwinds10.com/resources/uploads/image/49125-4.jpg)
-
Scrotum: Take a look at this you fucking mongrel...
(http://clintjcl.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/911-pentagon-official-video.gif)
(http://clintjcl.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/911-pentagon-simulation-of-how-the-pentagon-video-should-have-looked-like.gif)
(http://911research.com/essays/pentagon/docs/delmont1.jpg)
(http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/pentcrash.jpg)
so youre claiming it was a missle quad?
-
so youre claiming it was a missle quad?
It looks like that to me. What it does not look like to me is an airplane. What do you think?
-
It looks like that to me. What it does not look like to me is an airplane. What do you think?
what do you make of the 9/11 reports about cheney not ordering the plane to be shot down? wouldnt that ct fly in the face of your ct?
-
what do you make of the 9/11 reports about cheney not ordering the plane to be shot down? wouldnt that ct fly in the face of your ct?
How do you even know that is what Cheney ordered? Would you even trust anything coming from such a lying piece of scum?!
I do know Rumsfeld slipped up about how they shot down the planes on video. Planes that might not even have been in the air. We know Rumsfeld is a moron but he actually comes out on TV and says missles were used on 9/11! I would not put much faith in a report claiming whatever Bush or Cheney did on 9/11.
-
How do you even know that is what Cheney ordered? Would you even trust anything coming from such a lying piece of scum?!
I do know Rumsfeld slipped up about how they shot down the planes on video. Planes that might not even have been in the air. We know Rumsfeld is a moron but he actually comes out on TV and says missles were used on 9/11! I would not put much faith in a report claiming whatever Bush or Cheney did on 9/11.
LMAO thats what the 9/11 commission found...not what cheney said he said... ::)
so what you have is a couple of slip ups? thats solid proof bro...
im just trying to get what your ct is? the 9/11 commission came out and said one thing are you saying they are lying? this was reported by someone else not cheney quad...
so what happend to that flight then if it didnt hit the pentegon? what happend to the ppl? the pilots? where was the missle shot from?
-
Scrotum: Take a look at this you fucking mongrel...
(http://clintjcl.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/911-pentagon-official-video.gif)
(http://clintjcl.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/911-pentagon-simulation-of-how-the-pentagon-video-should-have-looked-like.gif)
(http://911research.com/essays/pentagon/docs/delmont1.jpg)
(http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/pentcrash.jpg)
Claim: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."
The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile—part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."
FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.
Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."
The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon
Guess the whole ASCE and Popular Mechanics is in on the whole conspiracy.
-
FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.
Where is the 75 ft wide hole in this photo? This is the impact area that collapsed later. Come on you can do better than that!
(http://i12.tinypic.com/6c7rm6t.jpg)
-
Where are the skidmarks? If you believe the official story the claim is that the plane skidded into the building at an impossbile low altitude. Look at the grass in this photo! Where's the evidence that an airplane had just flown over this grass a couple of feet above the ground??! Real pilots have also stated it is first of all impossible to fly such a plane only a few feet off the ground unless you are landing it and then the nose is pointing up which would have made a hole higher up in the building.
(http://911review.org/_webimages/pent/pentagon_347626.JPG)
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=618_1252533350&comment_order=newest_first
debunking 9/11 ct's one at a time... ;)
-
LMAO thats what the 9/11 commission found...not what cheney said he said... ::)
so what you have is a couple of slip ups? thats solid proof bro...
im just trying to get what your ct is? the 9/11 commission came out and said one thing are you saying they are lying? this was reported by someone else not cheney quad...
so what happend to that flight then if it didnt hit the pentegon? what happend to the ppl? the pilots? where was the missle shot from?
But where is your proof that Cheney ordered anything? Of course you can't deliver it is top secret. Also if someone is in witness protection how would you prove their identity? Please prove to me that the flights and passengers are REAL. If they did not exist I can't prove that they did because it is impossible to prove a lie. The argument everyone like you make against the CT of 9/11 is how can everyone be in on it?! That assumes everyone knows the big picture and all that transpired. Everyone receives their marching orders from above and they played their little part they don't even know they are implicated. Do you think everyone had a bird's eye view of 9/11 as it unfolded?
Pick a flight victim from Pentagon and Pennsylvania and prove to me that you know 100% they are real and not a fabricated identity.
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=618_1252533350&comment_order=newest_first
debunking 9/11 ct's one at a time... ;)
That video does not debunk anything. For all you know they could have carted in a few pieces of debris in a van / truck. Look at the high resolution photo above that shows an undisturbed lawn in front of a building that was supposed to have been hit by a huge airliner on the ground floor. Debunk that. Why is the grass undisturbed? Where's the debris?
-
Where is the 75 ft wide hole in this photo? This is the impact area that collapsed later. Come on you can do better than that!
As you seem to be having difficulty with reading comprehension, let me help you out.
The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact
A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University
What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass.
-
As you seem to be having difficulty with reading comprehension, let me help you out.
The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact
A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University
What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass.
1. Where is the 75' hole?
2. Where is the damage to the grass and sidewalk in front of the building on the first floor where the "hole" is?
-
1. Where is the 75' hole?
2. Where is the damage to the grass and sidewalk in front of the building on the first floor where the "hole" is?
watch the video... ;)
-
watch the video... ;)
Look at the photos... ;)
-
Where are the skidmarks? If you believe the official story the claim is that the plane skidded into the building at an impossbile low altitude. Look at the grass in this photo! Where's the evidence that an airplane had just flown over this grass a couple of feet above the ground??! Real pilots have also stated it is first of all impossible to fly such a plane only a few feet off the ground unless you are landing it and then the nose is pointing up which would have made a hole higher up in the building.
(http://911review.org/_webimages/pent/pentagon_347626.JPG)
actually I think the revised assesment is that it didnt skid...
and the cant fly a plane that low thing has been debunked as well... ;)
-
Where is the plane? This blurred streak across the lawn is not a plane.
(http://clintjcl.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/911-pentagon-official-video.gif)
This is the size of a plane.
(http://clintjcl.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/911-pentagon-simulation-of-how-the-pentagon-video-should-have-looked-like.gif)
-
Where is the plane? This blurred streak across the lawn is not a plane.
(http://clintjcl.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/911-pentagon-official-video.gif)
This is the size of a plane.
(http://clintjcl.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/911-pentagon-simulation-of-how-the-pentagon-video-should-have-looked-like.gif)
how do you know its not a plane?
your gif with the photo shopped plane in it is your proof? :D
-
actually I think the revised assesment is that it didnt skid...
and the cant fly a plane that low thing has been debunked as well... ;)
Show me your evidence that a plane that size could fly so low without crashing into the ground. It would have destroyed the lawn as it crashed into the building. You claim it is debunked now convince me.
For the plane to penatrate the building at the ground level it would have skidded off the ground. The plane is over two stories tall and the major damage before the wall collapsed is on the ground level and part of the second floor.
There is no damage on the sidewalk or grass. It is impossible if a huge plane had crashed into the ground floor.
(http://i12.tinypic.com/6c7rm6t.jpg)
-
how do you know its not a plane?
your gif with the photo shopped plane in it is your proof? :D
The size of the plane dictates that it would occupy a larger portion of the screen than the official footage which does not - blurred or not blurred. You are a poster child for the argument that Americans are sheep and can't think for themselves. USA schools breed people that can't question with logic. USA was built by immigrants from Europe and Asia that could think for themselves and were unmolested by a compromised system that breeds ignorance.
-
The size of the plane dictates that it would occupy a larger portion of the screen than the official footage which does not - blurred or not blurred. You are a poster child for the argument that Americans are sheep and can't think for themselves. USA schools breed people that can't question with logic. USA was built by immigrants from Europe and Asia that could think for themselves and were unmolested by a compromised system that breeds ignorance.
and you know this how? how fast was the plane traveling?
LOL im half immigrant ;D from asia
I am asking the questions your simply not answering them...
your answers so far are that the ppl never existed, they trucked in parts of the plane to pick them up later, and a gif with a photoshopped plane LMFAO...SERIOUSLY???
-
and you know this how? how fast was the plane traveling?
LOL im half immigrant ;D from asia
I am asking the questions your simply not answering them...
your answers so far are that the ppl never existed, they trucked in parts of the plane to pick them up later, and a gif with a photoshopped plane LMFAO...SERIOUSLY???
From Purdue University's Study they show a size comparison of 757 and the Pentagon Building. Look how tall the tail is. And this plane is slammed to the ground like a ganster ride. Yet the official footage shows a blurred object not nearly the same size. THIS IS MY ANSWER - The size of the object in the video is not correct.
(http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/images/sozen.pentagon.jpeg)
According to the ASCE report the plane was flying over 500 mph. I guess that backs up the theory that the lawn would have been toast as the slammed plane glided over the lawn a few inches / feet above the ground.
-
and you know this how? how fast was the plane traveling?
LOL im half immigrant ;D from asia
I am asking the questions your simply not answering them...
your answers so far are that the ppl never existed, they trucked in parts of the plane to pick them up later, and a gif with a photoshopped plane LMFAO...SERIOUSLY???
Yes and if I told you before you were born and capable of abstract thought patterns that you would be a half immigrant Asian in America on a small planet in a big solar system that is part of a huge galaxy with millions of other galaxies in a vast Universe you would have probably said: LMFAO... SERIOUSLY??? or ... NO WAY??!! And I would have agreed with you! Now THAT is more difficult to believe than some fake plane flying into the Pentagon? Wouldn't you agree to that?!
-
From Purdue University's Study they show a size comparison of 757 and the Pentagon Building. Look how tall the tail is. And this plane is slammed to the ground like a ganster ride. Yet the official footage shows a blurred object not nearly the same size. THIS IS MY ANSWER - The size of the object in the video is not correct.
According to the ASCE report the plane was flying over 500 mph. I guess that backs up the theory that the lawn would have been toast as the slammed plane glided over the lawn a few inches / feet above the ground.
you should do a little more research on your on CT the purdue study is what skip is using to show youre wrong and youre trying to discredit in one post and cite it in another ::)
second again do some more research b/c if im not mistaken its believed now that the plane DID NOT SKIP!!!!!
so we have the plane/ppl/pilots on the flight never existed...what was it then that was showing up on radar as the plane?
why strike the pentegon?
-
oh ya quad please link your nuttery so I can see where youre getting these sources from... ;) I saw loosechange.com on the bottom of one of your pics...you do know that movie has been debunked right? :-[
-
So who did it? Navy pilot? Air Firce Pilot? Air to ground missle? Ground to ground missle? Who gave the order? Do you realize that someone had to relay the meSSAGE RIGHT?
Also, no one at the hanger saw a missle missing? Dont they keep inventory on all missles on planes via a ground crew? They didnt see anything.
No one in the air control saw something off? Or was ait traffic control in on it too?
-
So who did it? Navy pilot? Air Firce Pilot? Air to ground missle? Ground to ground missle? Who gave the order? Do you realize that someone had to relay the meSSAGE RIGHT?
Also, no one at the hanger saw a missle missing? Dont they keep inventory on all missles on planes via a ground crew? They didnt see anything.
No one in the air control saw something off? Or was ait traffic control in on it too?
this is my question if there was no plane what was showing up on radar?
-
This is where the CT'ers piss me the fuck off beyond anything. They refuse to look at the big picture of their own CT's and simply cant, wont, dont, defend their positions or claims.
The missle theory probably requires at least 50 people in on it.
-
This is where the CT'ers piss me the fuck off beyond anything. They refuse to look at the big picture of their own CT's and simply cant, wont, dont, defend their positions or claims.
The missle theory probably requires at least 50 people in on it.
more than that, think about it the airport they took off from, the airport they were supposed to land at, the ppl on the plane, the pilots, the first responders, the "ppl that trucked in the plane wreckage" as quad would say, the ppl that saw the plane, the ppl that saw the plane on radar, the ppl that reported that they heard and saw cheney not order it shot down, the 9/11 commission...the list goes on and on...
then there is the burning question why? why shoot a missle at the pentegon?
-
I just want the CT'ers to at least present a plausible scenario to discuss that does not involve insults, conjecture, and even grander CT's/
If they believe its a missle, ok, lets discuss the logistics of a missle attack and really delve into how, who, and when this was hatched.
-
Here is a witness at Pentagon saying he heard what sounded like a low flying fighter jet and then he heard a massive explosion. The witness claims low flying fighter jets were a frequent occurence at Pentagon.
-
9/11 CNN correspondent reports "no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the pentagon"
-
If not a plane, then what was it?
And what about the people that perished on the "alleged" plane?
-
9/11 CNN correspondent reports "no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the pentagon"
He said there were small parts of the plane around.
-
He said there were small parts of the plane around.
He does not say they are plane pieces. He says there are small pieces laying around that you can pick up with your hand. In the video he claims there is no evidence that a plane crashed anywhere near the Pentagon - at least from what he has observed.
My conclusion from this is that the small pieces he is referring to could be anything: office equipment, building material, cars etc. I am not sure how you know he is referring to the small pieces as plane debris because he does not claim that in the video.
-
it's so funny....
people refuse to look at any of the 911 stuff because "it's too big, no way they could pull it off..."
yet they are eager to accept a CT which says "the government" created obama, lied about all his records, falsified social security numbers and birth certs, all so that a kenyan could get into office and purposefully destroy the economy.
There is no video evidence, no thousands of physicists and engineers, no NYPD and FDNY outcry... nothing but some "questions" from fringe websites - and they eagerly accept it as truth.
I guess it makes sense... politics blinds most people. I was a 100% pro-Bush person, so accepting 911 fishiness was VERY hard for me. I can understand if some people can't do that.
-
No, jackass, first off settle on one CT before you start pointing fingers.
Once you pick one CT, we will look at it. You guys cant even decide on what CT you think is better than the other one.
You never provide a logiticially possible scenario for your CT's because you know they are not plausile.
-
haha missile my arse. I love how he picks the minority of calls from people who say stuff like 'well it wasn't a plane' or 'i heard a missile' yeah okay buddy ::) you heard a plane flying fast as fu*k and you are now making an assumption that it's something it's not.
-
List of victims on the plane that hit the pentagon. Are these people all alive somewhere or were they all kidnapped and killed? Also, are their families in on this?
Where did the govt dispose of the plane?
________________________ ________________________ ____________
American Airlines Flight 77
Paul W. Ambrose
Yeneneh Betru
Mary Jane Booth
Bernard C. Brown, II
CAPT Charles F. Burlingame III, USNR, Retired
Suzanne M. Calley
William E. Caswell
David M. Charlebois
Sarah M. Clark
Asia S. Cottom
James D. Debeuneure
Rodney Dickens
Eddie A. Dillard
LCDR Charles A. Droz III, USN, Retired
Barbara G. Edwards
Charles S. Falkenberg
Dana Falkenberg
Zoe Falkenberg
J. Joseph Ferguson
Darlene E. Flagg
RADM Wilson F. Flagg, USNR, Retired
1stLt Richard P. Gabriel, USMC, Retired
Ian J. Gray
Stanley R. Hall
Michele M. Heidenberger
Bryan C. Jack
Steven D. Jacoby
Ann C. Judge
Chandler R. Keller
Yvonne E. Kennedy
Norma Cruz Khan
Karen Ann Kincaid
Dong Chul Lee
Jennifer Lewis
Kenneth E. Lewis
Renee A. May
Dora Marie Menchaca
Christopher C. Newton
Barbara K. Olson
Ruben S. Ornedo
Robert Penninger
Robert R. Ploger III
Zandra F. Ploger
Lisa J. Raines
Todd H. Reuben
John P. Sammartino
George W. Simmons
Donald D. Simmons
Mari-Rae Sopper
Robert Speisman
Norma Lang Steuerle
Hilda E. Taylor
Leonard E. Taylor
Sandra D. Teague
Leslie A. Whittington
CAPT John D. Yamnicky, Sr., USN, Retired
Vicki Yancey
Shuyin Yang
Yuguag Zheng
-
it's so funny....
people refuse to look at any of the 911 stuff because "it's too big, no way they could pull it off..."
yet they are eager to accept a CT which says "the government" created obama, lied about all his records, falsified social security numbers and birth certs, all so that a kenyan could get into office and purposefully destroy the economy.
There is no video evidence, no thousands of physicists and engineers, no NYPD and FDNY outcry... nothing but some "questions" from fringe websites - and they eagerly accept it as truth.
I guess it makes sense... politics blinds most people. I was a 100% pro-Bush person, so accepting 911 fishiness was VERY hard for me. I can understand if some people can't do that.
First off fucker if youre going to comment on this then stay and defend your view points at least quad does that even though it results in the flight/passengers/pilots being fake and ppl trucking in airplane wreckage...
ppl refuse to believe 9/11 was a CT b/c there isnt any credible proof you have a couple slip ups fruedian slips as proof you ppl cite the 9/11 commission when the 9/11 commission says that there was a plane and that someone heard cheney basically order it not to be shot down...you have plane wreckage at the site, you have ppl that died in the plane, you have ppl that say they saw a plane...
all you have is the same that others have about obama and his birth certificate shit just seems a little off but for some reason your whole hog for 9/11 even though you cant produce even one person who was in on it yet birthers are crazy? pot meet kettle
now go run away like you always do ::)
-
So you are saying the outer walls were a minimum 3 feet thick? HAHAHAHA! Look we all know it is the Pentagon but really you think they would have a 3 feet thick outer wall??? Please at most it is 16 = 18 inches thick. If that. More likely it is 12 inches.
Look at the image below. Does the outer wall appear to be 3 feet solid? If you think so you are full of BS.
(http://www.fourwinds10.com/resources/uploads/image/49125-4.jpg)
qUAD -
hAVE YOU ever BEEN to the Pentagon? Do you KNOW anyone who has worked there? I do. That photo shows us NOTHING in terms of wall thickness. What it basically shows is it is made of concrete. The thickness could be 3 ft thick there because the photo could distort the image. There. There's another conspiracy for you fruits to follow....
-
haha missile my arse. I love how he picks the minority of calls from people who say stuff like 'well it wasn't a plane' or 'i heard a missile' yeah okay buddy ::) you heard a plane flying fast as fu*k and you are now making an assumption that it's something it's not.
they were going off of hollywood movies you know? when they hear "pew, pew" they think someones shooting a lazer gun...
-
It looks like that to me. What it does not look like to me is an airplane. What do you think?
What about the video posted on here showing aircraft parts sprewn around the infield of the Pentagon??? HUUMM??
-
The need to have a bigger/sinister explanation to validate tragic events still appeals to people i see. :)
-
How do you even know that is what Cheney ordered? Would you even trust anything coming from such a lying piece of scum?!
I do know Rumsfeld slipped up about how they shot down the planes on video. Planes that might not even have been in the air. We know Rumsfeld is a moron but he actually comes out on TV and says missles were used on 9/11! I would not put much faith in a report claiming whatever Bush or Cheney did on 9/11.
i KNOW... Santa Claus is real, the Easter Bunny lives and around around we go... You CT kooks will "survive because you will question everything to a point things come back full circle. Quad, many on here posted questions to you and you have selectively ignored them. One, my question about the wall thickness. Until you can PROVE that the walls weren't that thick other than some grainy image taken by some internet siter prolly suppoerting your fruitloop groups. you loose. You have not answereed the video posted showing aircraft parts thrown around the infield. But instead you throw around rediculous questions. Next you will say the earth is flat and the moon is made of swisscheese.
-
List of victims on the plane that hit the pentagon. Are these people all alive somewhere or were they all kidnapped and killed? Also, are their families in on this?
Where did the govt dispose of the plane?
________________________ ________________________ ____________
American Airlines Flight 77
Paul W. Ambrose
Yeneneh Betru
Mary Jane Booth
Bernard C. Brown, II
CAPT Charles F. Burlingame III, USNR, Retired
Suzanne M. Calley
William E. Caswell
David M. Charlebois
Sarah M. Clark
Asia S. Cottom
James D. Debeuneure
Rodney Dickens
Eddie A. Dillard
LCDR Charles A. Droz III, USN, Retired
Barbara G. Edwards
Charles S. Falkenberg
Dana Falkenberg
Zoe Falkenberg
J. Joseph Ferguson
Darlene E. Flagg
RADM Wilson F. Flagg, USNR, Retired
1stLt Richard P. Gabriel, USMC, Retired
Ian J. Gray
Stanley R. Hall
Michele M. Heidenberger
Bryan C. Jack
Steven D. Jacoby
Ann C. Judge
Chandler R. Keller
Yvonne E. Kennedy
Norma Cruz Khan
Karen Ann Kincaid
Dong Chul Lee
Jennifer Lewis
Kenneth E. Lewis
Renee A. May
Dora Marie Menchaca
Christopher C. Newton
Barbara K. Olson
Ruben S. Ornedo
Robert Penninger
Robert R. Ploger III
Zandra F. Ploger
Lisa J. Raines
Todd H. Reuben
John P. Sammartino
George W. Simmons
Donald D. Simmons
Mari-Rae Sopper
Robert Speisman
Norma Lang Steuerle
Hilda E. Taylor
Leonard E. Taylor
Sandra D. Teague
Leslie A. Whittington
CAPT John D. Yamnicky, Sr., USN, Retired
Vicki Yancey
Shuyin Yang
Yuguag Zheng
I bet if you look you will see they were registered in 2008 and voted for Obama!!
-
From Purdue University's Study they show a size comparison of 757 and the Pentagon Building. Look how tall the tail is. And this plane is slammed to the ground like a ganster ride. Yet the official footage shows a blurred object not nearly the same size. THIS IS MY ANSWER - The size of the object in the video is not correct.
(http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/images/sozen.pentagon.jpeg)
According to the ASCE report the plane was flying over 500 mph. I guess that backs up the theory that the lawn would have been toast as the slammed plane glided over the lawn a few inches / feet above the ground.
Are these two images to scale? Quad? Anyone can place a human being standing bext to the Empire State Building and the person will be bigger if it isn't to scale. Again, these silly graphics... just funny stuff.
-
911 stinks, plain and simple. I spent years debating it, and to me it's pointless. You are talking about things that I debated 5 years ago... why waste all the time over and over, to convince a few message board peers that it's fishy? My opinion, your opinion, they really don't matter all that much on the deal, to be honest.
I think it stinks, you don't. It's that simple. I hate the lakers, and you may like them. We're gonna have differing opinions. I've spent 5 years studying the shit that you have not, and I was a devout Bush supporter who had a hard time accepting 911 stinks. You spend 5 years looking at it with an objective mind, and see if you're still declaing a liveleak video to 'debunk all the questions'.
LMAO....
-
So if we are now going to say it was a missle?
1. Air Force or Navy?
2. How many people relayed the message to get to the pilot? none of them ever pulled away from the plot?
3. Where did the fighter plane land and did no one on the ground notice a missing missle? They didnt say anything or were they in on it too? Dont these planes have to keep an inventory of their weapons?
4. Was the air traffic control in on this too? They didnt notice a plane going rogue? If it was a "rouge" pilot, what about the WTC?
5. Who disposed the plane where the passngers were? A plane that size would have to land at an airstrip no? If the plane landed in a field, there would be a record and evidence of that. Or did the govt secretely dispose of the crash and plane so perfectly that no one knew of this? So who did the coverup of tjhe plane and passngers? A coverup of that size would take literally dozens of workers working full time. Not one of them ever talked?
Do you see how utterly ludicrous this is?
Also - to believe in this missle theory, you also have to explain away the WTC situation. This whole CT nonsense is getting insultingly bad in how ridiculous it is.
-
Show me your evidence that a plane that size could fly so low without crashing into the ground. It would have destroyed the lawn as it crashed into the building. You claim it is debunked now convince me.
For the plane to penatrate the building at the ground level it would have skidded off the ground. The plane is over two stories tall and the major damage before the wall collapsed is on the ground level and part of the second floor.
There is no damage on the sidewalk or grass. It is impossible if a huge plane had crashed into the ground floor.
(http://i12.tinypic.com/6c7rm6t.jpg)
Right here is the answer to why guys and gals like Quad will always say they KNOW about that 9/11 was a conspiracy. That is because they are spoon fed their information from sites like this one where he has ripped his pictures and vids from to "prove" his theory. But, instead, he has refused repeated attempts to discuss theories outside of the close-minded circle he travels in. Instead, we have gone round and around and around with the same questions, the same ingored answers, no comments from videos debunking the claims made by the one and only Quad.
So, I have decided to say "UNCLE" and levae this topic alone. But before I go let me say this... You win Quad. 911 was a down right dirty shame. Bush was in on it. Obama knew it amd he said good, in a speach that lasted 34 hours.. Cheney thought he would make more money and decided to stay quiet. John Kerry thought that it wan't a good idea because it made his getting shot in the ass with rice not as big a story. But you win Quad. Now, you and the other 2% who believe this, you know, Charlie "I beat my 12 wives" Sheen, Rosie "I have a fat lesbo cruise ship" O'Donnell, and whoever else rides the CT wagon can go away and feel like you've uncoved the master plan. Or please, just go away.
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=618_1252533350&comment_order=newest_first
Why has this video been consistently ignored? 240, the "I don't have time to watch a 4 minute video but I'll find time to log 3 dozen posts in this thread" guy with his excuses and quadzilla, the braindead moron claiming to be an architect (nice Samson-esque claim to try to imply that you're a credible source), really make me laugh.
-
I have posed some serious questions, and the refusal of the CT'ers to even adress one of them is very telling.
Don't you CT'ers at least want to challenge your own views and get creative for once?
-
good point about the grass being completely unscathed, as a plane flew a few feet over it at 500 mph.
here's something that'll get you laughing, about that lawn...
http://killtown.911review.org/pentalawn.html
-
good point about the grass being completely unscathed, as a plane flew a few feet over it at 500 mph.
here's something that'll get you laughing, about that lawn...
http://killtown.911review.org/pentalawn.html
AGAIN:
________________________ ______
So if we are now going to say it was a missle?
1. Air Force or Navy?
2. How many people relayed the message to get to the pilot? none of them ever pulled away from the plot?
3. Where did the fighter plane land and did no one on the ground notice a missing missle? They didnt say anything or were they in on it too? Dont these planes have to keep an inventory of their weapons?
4. Was the air traffic control in on this too? They didnt notice a plane going rogue? If it was a "rouge" pilot, what about the WTC?
5. Who disposed the plane where the passngers were? A plane that size would have to land at an airstrip no? If the plane landed in a field, there would be a record and evidence of that. Or did the govt secretely dispose of the crash and plane so perfectly that no one knew of this? So who did the coverup of tjhe plane and passngers? A coverup of that size would take literally dozens of workers working full time. Not one of them ever talked?
Do you see how utterly ludicrous this is?
Also - to believe in this missle theory, you also have to explain away the WTC situation. This whole CT nonsense is getting insultingly bad in how ridiculous it is.
-
240 claimed that holograms were used at one point. I stopped taking him seriously right then and there.
-
"Don't you CT'ers at least want to challenge your own views and get creative for once?"
"You CTers"?
Brother, you're a CTer too. You think obama was born in kenya, uses fake SS numbers, faked his college transcripts, etc etc so that he can give away our future to some secret group whose members you can't identify.
At least the 911 "CT" has a lot of people of science asking the Qs. You have none of those behind your "CT". So you're one of us lol...
-
911 stinks, plain and simple. I spent years debating it, and to me it's pointless. You are talking about things that I debated 5 years ago... why waste all the time over and over, to convince a few message board peers that it's fishy? My opinion, your opinion, they really don't matter all that much on the deal, to be honest.
I think it stinks, you don't. It's that simple. I hate the lakers, and you may like them. We're gonna have differing opinions. I've spent 5 years studying the shit that you have not, and I was a devout Bush supporter who had a hard time accepting 911 stinks. You spend 5 years looking at it with an objective mind, and see if you're still declaing a liveleak video to 'debunk all the questions'.
LMAO....
then quit posting in threads about it while refusing to debate the flaws in your CT and evidence against it... ::)
-
Hey, 33, I could ask the same Q of you, when you post these silly accusations about obama.
So, you believe the state of hawaii, mccain, hilary, congress - EVERYONE is is on this massive secret so a kenyan can crash our economy for some secret group whose members you dont know. But you 'feel it', right?
I can personally admit Obama's record STINKS without making you answer dozens of questions where you could not POSSIBLY have the answers. The same thing applies here. 911 stinks. It's that simple. it would be impossible to answer the Qs you pose, and you know that, but it's a handy dodge.
You're a CTer because you know something stinks about the obama early days. I'm a CTer because I know something stinks about 911. it's as easy as that.
-
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
Hahaha! I think 240 checks all 10 of these boxes. :-X
-
"Don't you CT'ers at least want to challenge your own views and get creative for once?"
"You CTers"?
Brother, you're a CTer too. You think obama was born in kenya, uses fake SS numbers, faked his college transcripts, etc etc so that he can give away our future to some secret group whose members you can't identify.
At least the 911 "CT" has a lot of people of science asking the Qs. You have none of those behind your "CT". So you're one of us lol...
LOL bro the majority of the science community feels that it wasnt a CT...what you and others do is grab obscure articles from certain ppl with credentials and hold that up as proof and then ignore the overwhelming articles that discredit yours by ppl with credentials... ::)
-
Hey, 33, I could ask the same Q of you, when you post these silly accusations about obama.
So, you believe the state of hawaii, mccain, hilary, congress - EVERYONE is is on this massive secret so a kenyan can crash our economy for some secret group whose members you dont know. But you 'feel it', right?
I can personally admit Obama's record STINKS without making you answer dozens of questions where you could not POSSIBLY have the answers. The same thing applies here. 911 stinks. It's that simple. it would be impossible to answer the Qs you pose, and you know that, but it's a handy dodge.
You're a CTer because you know something stinks about the obama early days. I'm a CTer because I know something stinks about 911. it's as easy as that.
I said I dont know about Obama's BC since he has paid ! Million Dollars to keep his records secret.
-
"LOL bro the majority of the science community feels that it wasnt a CT..."
Link please.
"I said I dont know about Obama's BC"
LOL... come on dude, sack up... Don't be one of those fence-setters saying "I dunno, what you guys think..." while posting ten times a day on Obama's mystery past. You think it stinks, right? Is that fair to say?
-
Yes his record stinks, but i have tried to back up my claims and at least take the next step to plausible realistic conclusions.
-
there is a difference 240 3333 is open to debate and looking at facts from either side, you however are not you come in here post a few things that are for the most part easily debunked and then you dont address the points debunking your CT...
now again run away like you always do ::)
-
I'm just saying. If we are going to have a CT debate - fine, lets discuss it. But while we are at it, it seems to me that the plausability factor should be right up there in any discussion.
-
Ok let's debate then:
Question 1: Why is the grass at the Pentagon undisturbed after a plane flew 500 miles per hour a couple of feet above the ground and slammed into the ground level of the Pentagon?
-
Do, its not going to work that way. You say its a missle, and we need to look at what actually would have to take place for that to happen.
-
Do, its not going to work that way. You say its a missile, and we need to look at what actually would have to take place for that to happen.
You said you wanted to debate. Here we have evidence in front of us: an undisturbed lawn. This is photo evidence. This should be easy. One question at a time. Debate it and then move on to the next question.
For us to starting debating how it was actually planned is impossible because we would be guessing and making assumptions. You need physical evidence to do that. We don't have it because the actions of classified personnel is first of all based on what is being released to the public by potential criminals and unverifiable. Go watch Columbo. He has to start with evidence first and then get to the conclusion.
-
You said you wanted to debate. Here we have evidence in front of us: an undisturbed lawn. This is photo evidence. This should be easy. One question at a time. Debate it and then move on to the next question.
For us to starting debating how it was actually planned is impossible because we would be guessing and making assumptions. You need physical evidence to do that. We don't have it because the actions of classified personnel is first of all based on what is being released to the public by potential criminals and unverifiable. Go watch Columbo. He has to start with evidence first and then get to the conclusion.
You want me to engage in speculation and open ended discussions, while we have a video and pics of the building with actual parts from the airplane. We have missing 58 passengers and crew, we have popular mechanics' expose ect.
So why dont we discuss concrete picrueres and evidence as opposed to my uninformed speculation?
-
333 - bro, I agree with you on a lot of things. I think it is best not to dwell on this topic anymore nothing is to be gained from it. In my mind I am not satisfied with the explanation for 9/11. But I respect everyone else's opinion. That means all of you scrotums (j/k) out there!
Peace.
-
333 - bro, I agree with you on a lot of things. I think it is best not to dwell on this topic anymore nothing is to be gained from it. In my mind I am not satisfied with the explanation for 9/11. But I respect everyone else's opinion. That means all of you scrotums (j/k) out there!
Peace.
NOOOO come back I want to hear you and 240's explination for the ppl on the plane, the pilots, the wreckage they found at the site?
this is exactly the problem that we have been talking about with CT'ers you guys can not refute the evidence to disprove your CT...
-
333 - bro, I agree with you on a lot of things. I think it is best not to dwell on this topic anymore nothing is to be gained from it. In my mind I am not satisfied with the explanation for 9/11. But I respect everyone else's opinion. That means all of you scrotums (j/k) out there!
Peace.
Scrotums??? Ok, NOW I'M BACK!!!! hahaha... j/k. Good idea. Let's leave it at those words spoken by you... upto the genitalia references... fvckface! ;D :o 8)
-
I can't believe a 757 hit the pentagon and didn't cause more damage than that. The simple fact that the amount of kinetic energy being carried by a plane of that mass traveling at that speed would cause an explosion 5 times the size it did, not to mention at the very least much more damage to the building, lawn and surrounding area.
Now, could a smaller plane have it it? Sure, that's certainly plausible, but a 757, I just can't logically believe that given the pictures and video released. Obviously something hit it, there was some debris of a plane and a brief glimpse of an object on the video, but there's just no way a 757 hit it.
Is it a conspiracy? I don't know nor do I care. I'd like to see another investigation done but I fear too much has already been shuffled away or "lost" to really give us any more information.
-
BBBUUUMMMPPPP
-
i said towers not pentagon keep looking :D :D
-
i said towers not pentagon keep looking :D :D
Please, you are a CT nut and you are fucking so disgraced after this you have nowhere to hide.
-
ha ha keep looking, like i said you lie
-
333386 thinks the towers and the pentagon are the same buildings ;D
-
BBBUUUMMMPPPP
That's an owning. Not like Blacken the retard had any credibility before but this is pretty amusing.
What an embarrassment.
-
ha ha ha your wrong again, hey but keep checking everyones spelling :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
BUMP
-
BUMP
little guy bored again :D
-
little guy bored again :D
No - just admit that for 8 years you were dead wrong on your traitorous 911 CT's.
-
No - just admit that for 8 years you were dead wrong on your traitorous 911 CT's.
what are you talking about mr lawyer ???
-
what are you talking about mr lawyer ???
You know damn well what I am talking about. You communists, leftists, and treasonous pofs libs for 8 years engaged in these 911 CT's saying Bush was behind 911, yet now revel in bin ladens death.
-
You know damn well what I am talking about. You communists, leftists, and treasonous pofs libs for 8 years engaged in these 911 CT's saying Bush was behind 911, yet now revel in bin ladens death.
hahahahahahaha where did i say that,i hope you are better prepared in your cases then this if you reads that i agreed like 8 post down mr lawyer :D :D :D
-
hahahahahahaha where did i say that,i hope you are better prepared in your cases then this if you reads that i agreed like 8 post down mr lawyer :D :D :D
By saying the pentagon was hit by a missile you imply bush was behind this moron, and by extension was working with bin laden to coordinate the planes in the towers.
So fuck off you communist hack.
-
By saying the pentagon was hit by a missile you imply bush was behind this moron, and by extension was working with bin laden to coordinate the planes in the towers.
So fuck off you communist hack.
200 million a day trips,birthers, obama calling swat,trump,and all the other shit, lets face it you know how to pick the losers :D :D