Conspiracy Theorists

[looney]

It's a conspiracy. Unless you can post in exactly the same idiotic, offensive parlance then where's your PROOF?

HA! court you owt didn't...i!! Just another idiot wat do you no from your public school just wanna talk shite an fink were all think less. You smell

I orefer Parlay to Parlance as its way more Cpt Jack Sparrow and would make NSC a lot more hip place.

 

[brighton fella]

Tricky chippy Nicky took too much mickey.

Banned for good.

A bit harsh if you don't mind me saying, For the short time he was on here he took a fair whack of abuse.

 

[brighton fella]

If you're not him then why are you so angry? What's offended you? Bizarre.

Seriously though, being insulted by an illiterate moron (or two) who can barely string a sentence together is a compliment to me. Cheers.

Love the idea that I'm some sort of toff too. I've lived in Sheffield for 25 years and have drunk in all the roughest boozers in the city. Don't think that would have worked well for a "toff".

He'd probably have "got his head used as a football" or something. Like "your mate" on here thinks he would have done to my sort (whatever that is) at school. So far off the mark it's hilarious.

Think there's a bit of projection going on there though as anyone reading this would guess that brighton fella has taken a few serious kicks to the head in his time. [emoji23]

Priceless.

I seriously don't know what it is about you that makes me crack up, The fact that you are a toff or the fact that you get offended so easily. Why be coy about it, It's nothing to be ashamed of.

"I have drunk in all the roughest boozers in Sheffield" wow:: I guess when you were in there you kept your mouth firmly zipped and didn't mention the fact you come from Eton College,

"I guess that brighton fella has taken a few serious kicks to the head in his time" :.. That was the killer punch for me the one that finally nailed it , It almost split my seam.

Finally and for the record i am not proud of what i got up to at school and shortly after, If i could live my life again I wouldn't have done such cruel things, Instead i pity people like you now.

 

[W.C.]

Brought about because I work with a couple of guys, senior officers here on board (Croatian) who basically called me out as a blinkered sheep for not believing that the U.S. govt were behind 9.11. They believe completely in all the theories mentioned on here.

It's all very odd. And at times, pretty offensive.

 

[brighton fella]

Ok, let's go with that. b fella, do you have an inferiority complex?

In general arguments on this board, intelligence doesn't normally come up, as it's not the be all and end all. However, most of us here cannot understand why a few of you think you know something we don't, while at the same time demonstrating a chronic lack of intelligence and an inability to question your thought. We're at a loss as to how you can be so stupid.

As i said, "OBSESSED",
Your post is all about ones lack of intelligence and absolutely naff all else, It strongly suggests to me that you suffer from a inferiority complex yourself otherwise you wouldn't keep banging on about it. Do you understand that or should i explain it all over again until you do.

Don't feel as if i am singling you out because others on here are guilty to, The peanut i was laughing at earlier is one of them...

 

[colinz]

You realise that humans don't have internet links, websites etc do?
Here are some examples of footage though:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ

The towers burned at towards 1000 degrees C (similar to Grenfell tower). The steel itself probably reached temperatures around 800 C. Steel softens at 425 C, and loses half of its strength at 650 C. The weakening of the steel, along with the distortion caused by steel expansion, caused the steel to fail.

I don't think anyone said it's impossible to destroy any tower with explosives. What we're saying is that if you look at footage of towers that are destroyed by explosives, it's very different to the way the twin towers fell.

I was comparing the sound made by the explosives in towers that have actually been destroyed by explosives. Given that the twin towers were larger, you'd expect even more explosives to be needed. It was just further proof that the towers were not destroyed by explosives.

How close up do you need? Live footage was shown at time (I remember watching it) and many others also recorded it and posted later (see the first link I posted in this thread).

They weren't.

But all evidence shows that they were hit by jets.
What is your basis for suggesting it would take more than 15 seconds to collapse? The structure towards the top lost it's strength and gave way, so over a dozen floors weighing thousands of tons were dropped onto the floors below, so of course the collapse was fast.

I can't believe how dumb you are you post a video with fake imagery and don't even bother studying it.

But there is a God, the following video was Ace Baker's excellent video explaining video compositing analysis as he picks apart CNN's Hezarkhani footage .
I don't agree with every thing Ace says, because I believe the whole image pool of 9/11 is fake. Ace believes the CGI plane was inserted into real time live footage.

The problem with you my friend is you are trying to find the science to fit in with your logistical analysis, when it should be the other way round.
Don't worry I was once where you are, don't let Cognitive Dissonance kick in. Now try & reply without being angry.

 

[BadFish]

I can't believe how dumb you are you post a video with fake imagery and don't even bother studying it.

But there is a God, the following video was Ace Baker's excellent video explaining video compositing analysis as he picks apart CNN's Hezarkhani footage .
I don't agree with every thing Ace says, because I believe the whole image pool of 9/11 is fake. Ace believes the CGI plane was inserted into real time live footage.

The problem with you my friend is you are trying to find the science to fit in with your logistical analysis, when it should be the other way round.
Don't worry I was once where you are, don't let Cognitive Dissonance kick in. Now try & reply without being angry.

Your video seems to prove that it is possible, using computer graphics, to add a plane into filmed footage. I knew this already having watched films over the years. What your evidence fails to prove is that they DID add a plane to the footage.

So, why are there not thousands of New Yorkers and tourists saying 'well hang on a minute i was there that day and I saw no planes' . Surely from the moment this happened (or didn't) people, lots of people, would be saying something?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[colinz]

Your video seems to prove that it is possible, using computer graphics, to add a plane into filmed footage. I knew this already having watched films over the years. What your evidence fails to prove is that they DID add a plane to the footage.

So, why are there not thousands of New Yorkers and tourists saying 'well hang on a minute i was there that day and I saw no planes' . Surely from the moment this happened (or didn't) people, lots of people, would be saying something?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Can you link to any of the 1,000s of New Yorkers who did say they saw a plane, and were not representative of the media.

When you study the image pool of 9/11 some of the footage has missing buildings as well as some buildings having missing windows etc. The Manhattan landscape was a computorised Sim City type of assembly. In this case it would have been easier to insert the plane from the out set, in to the pre made footage of the Manhattan land scape
All the footage is of poor quality the makers of the movie Independence Day did a better job.

There is also the famous "nose out" (featured in September Clues) where the nose/ cone of UA175 pops out the other side of WCT2. Unscathed with the same pixel measurements on entry and exit.

I like that Ace Baker video because it's quite slick and acts as a gate way to understand how the footage was easy to faked. Some think that Ace Baker guy is a media shill trying to obfuscate the media's role in it.

 

[BadFish]

Can you link to any of the 1,000s of New Yorkers who did say they saw a plane, and were not representative of the media.

When you study the image pool of 9/11 some of the footage has missing buildings as well as some buildings having missing windows etc. The Manhattan landscape was a computorised Sim City type of assembly. In this case it would have been easier to insert the plane from the out set.
All the footage is of poor quality the makers of the movie Independence Day did a better job.

There is also the famous "nose out" (featured in September Clues) where the nose/ cone of UA175 pops out the other side of WCT2. Unscathed with the same pixel measurements on entry and exit.

I like that Ace Baker video because it's quite slick and acts as a gate way to understand how the footage was easy to faked. Some think that Ace Baker guy is a media shill trying to obfuscate the media's role in it.

I think that had the planes been added later there would have be many people feeling us the truth.

A friend of a friend died in the attacks and none of their pals or colleagues said anything about the lack of planes. That will do me.

Yeah, alright. I'll be honest, you are not providing any information that compels me to dig any deeper.

I found the nose cone video you mention and thought that was interesting. I will follow that one up.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[brighton fella]

I can't believe how dumb you are you post a video with fake imagery and don't even bother studying it.

But there is a God, the following video was Ace Baker's excellent video explaining video compositing analysis as he picks apart CNN's Hezarkhani footage .
I don't agree with every thing Ace says, because I believe the whole image pool of 9/11 is fake. Ace believes the CGI plane was inserted into real time live footage.

The problem with you my friend is you are trying to find the science to fit in with your logistical analysis, when it should be the other way round.
Don't worry I was once where you are, don't let Cognitive Dissonance kick in. Now try & reply without being angry.

I don't know the exact ins and outs of how it all happened but one thing is clear, The official story doesn't add up. Which is partly how i came to form the opinion i did ..Which is 9/11 was a inside job, It has to be, More things suggest that it was rather than not. The more i see the more i am convinced. ...

 

[beorhthelm]

its so obvious it was all CGI to cover up the orbital sonic weapon system Project Odin, nothing else could have destroyed two major towers without leaving a trail of evidence.

 

[BadFish]

Can you link to any of the 1,000s of New Yorkers who did say they saw a plane, and were not representative of the media.

When you study the image pool of 9/11 some of the footage has missing buildings as well as some buildings having missing windows etc. The Manhattan landscape was a computorised Sim City type of assembly. In this case it would have been easier to insert the plane from the out set, in to the pre made footage of the Manhattan land scape
All the footage is of poor quality the makers of the movie Independence Day did a better job.

There is also the famous "nose out" (featured in September Clues) where the nose/ cone of UA175 pops out the other side of WCT2. Unscathed with the same pixel measurements on entry and exit.

I like that Ace Baker video because it's quite slick and acts as a gate way to understand how the footage was easy to faked. Some think that Ace Baker guy is a media shill trying to obfuscate the media's role in it.

http://debunkingnoplanes.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/the-nose-out-fallacy.html

So there are two theories one that says the nose cone of a CGI's plane poked through the other side of the building. This of course ignored the fact that thousands upon thousands of people would have seen through this lie. The other theory suggests that this is a plume of smoke and debris pushing out the other side of the tower from a real plane.

What sort of idiot muppet moron did they get to do the CGI footage and who checked the bloody thing? I mean seriously they have the means and technological wherewithal to secretly rig three buildings up for detonation and fool an entire city into believing that they saw some aeroplanes and concoct a story about a terrorist (who has massive links to the current government - I mean seriously why choose him?) who has organised all this. BUT they can't manage to get someone to do a decent bit of photoshopping for them? (did they learn nothing from faking the moon landings?) AND they didn't get anyone to check the footage before they put it out?

NO sorry, I am going to go with the sane explanation that looks at a number of camera angles and has some logic.

Baaaa

 

[Triggaaar]

I can't believe how dumb you are you post a video with fake imagery and don't even bother studying it.

Did you even watch it? They videos contained in it are not fake.

But there is a God, the following video was Ace Baker's excellent video explaining video compositing analysis as he picks apart CNN's Hezarkhani footage

He simply shows that it's possible to create fake footage, as we all know already.
.

The problem with you my friend is you are trying to find the science to fit in with your logistical analysis

Wrong.

Don't worry I was once where you are

No you weren't. You didn't witness and dismiss so many years of daft conspiracy ideas.

Now try & reply without being angry.

You've posted no evidence at all that it was fake.

Can you link to any of the 1,000s of New Yorkers who did say they saw a plane, and were not representative of the media.

As I've said before, these are real people, they don't have internet links. Those that were there tell people what they saw, and they saw jets just as we did.

When you study the image pool of 9/11 some of the footage has missing buildings as well as some buildings having missing windows etc. The Manhattan landscape was a computorised Sim City type of assembly. In this case it would have been easier to insert the plane from the out set, in to the pre made footage of the Manhattan land scape

But there were millions of people in New York that day, many with cameras of their own, and what they videoed matches what we saw on the TV, which proves you wrong.

There is also the famous "nose out" (featured in September Clues) where the nose/ cone of UA175 pops out the other side of WCT2. Unscathed with the same pixel measurements on entry and exit.

If it was a video made before the event, as you suggest, you wouldn't accidentally make imagery of the nose popping out the other side. There's no logic to your argument.

I like that Ace Baker video because it's quite slick and acts as a gate way to understand how the footage was easy to faked.

Everyone knows it would be easy to make a pretend video in advance, just watch any action movie. But that would mean getting all news crews in on it, as well as the millions of people in New York.

 

[Megazone]

The 9/11 official version was completely true and there is nothing to question. Bring on the Arsenal!

Thread closed!

 

[Albion my Albion]

Thread closed!

Closed as the Arsenal goal has been today.

 

[scaramanga1]

Priceless.

I seriously don't know what it is about you that makes me crack up, The fact that you are a toff or the fact that you get offended so easily. Why be coy about it, It's nothing to be ashamed of.

"I have drunk in all the roughest boozers in Sheffield" wow:: I guess when you were in there you kept your mouth firmly zipped and didn't mention the fact you come from Eton College,

"I guess that brighton fella has taken a few serious kicks to the head in his time" :.. That was the killer punch for me the one that finally nailed it , It almost split my seam.

Finally and for the record i am not proud of what i got up to at school and shortly after, If i could live my life again I wouldn't have done such cruel things, Instead i pity people like you now.

well im new to this site so will be happy to put across my opinions re the 911 conspiracies, and well done the arsenal ..

 

[scaramanga1]

http://debunkingnoplanes.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/the-nose-out-fallacy.html

So there are two theories one that says the nose cone of a CGI's plane poked through the other side of the building. This of course ignored the fact that thousands upon thousands of people would have seen through this lie. The other theory suggests that this is a plume of smoke and debris pushing out the other side of the tower from a real plane.

What sort of idiot muppet moron did they get to do the CGI footage and who checked the bloody thing? I mean seriously they have the means and technological wherewithal to secretly rig three buildings up for detonation and fool an entire city into believing that they saw some aeroplanes and concoct a story about a terrorist (who has massive links to the current government - I mean seriously why choose him?) who has organised all this. BUT they can't manage to get someone to do a decent bit of photoshopping for them? (did they learn nothing from faking the moon landings?) AND they didn't get anyone to check the footage before they put it out?

NO sorry, I am going to go with the sane explanation that looks at a number of camera angles and has some logic.

Baaaa

fair play to you...

 

[Triggaaar]

I don't know the exact ins and outs of how it all happened but one thing is clear, The official story doesn't add up.

That sums your thoughts up. You can't put forward a credible idea of what happened, you just don't believe the official line.
People post nonsense about how you could fake some footage, so you think 'right, the footage was faked'.
People post that a newsreader said building 7 was down before it actually was, so you're duped into thinking it must have been blown up.
Despite the fact that each ridiculous conspiracy theory is at odds with the next, you just go along with them all convinced that something isn't right, whilst being unable to give an example of what might have happened.

Just like with Sandy Hook, where you won't even say whether or not you believe the school existed in the first place.

 

[brighton fella]

That sums your thoughts up. You can't put forward a credible idea of what happened, you just don't believe the official line.
People post nonsense about how you could fake some footage, so you think 'right, the footage was faked'.
People post that a newsreader said building 7 was down before it actually was, so you're duped into thinking it must have been blown up.
Despite the fact that each ridiculous conspiracy theory is at odds with the next, you just go along with them all convinced that something isn't right, whilst being unable to give an example of what might have happened.

Just like with Sandy Hook, where you won't even say whether or not you believe the school existed in the first place.

Explain how a mystery fire proof passport is miraculously found fully in tact at the foot of the world trade centre amongst molten iron . ??

Explain the collapse of building 7 and how it was identical to that of a demolition job. Explain why Larry Silverstein was recorded saying "PULL IT"

Explain the reason why every cctv camera stretching the entire perimeter of the most guarded building on the planet (the Pentagon) was turned off ??
Explain how after the Pentagon was struck there was a complete lack of plane wreckage to be found, ??
Explain how the grassed perimeter surrounding the Pentagon was left as smooth as a bowling green after the Pentagon was struck, ??
Explain how 100's of fully qualified pilots with years of experience behind their belt have all since confirmed that it would have been a near on impossible task for a 757 to perform such a manoeuvre like that of the 757 which struck the Pentagon .?? .

There are so many more unanswered questions i really cant be arsed, if i could i would be here all week writing them down.

 

[Eeyore]

Tricky chippy Nicky took too much mickey.

Banned for good.

You should have at least directed him to Argus Comments. Isn't that where most of his type land up ?