Conspiracy Theorists

[W.C.]

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.

I'm sorry am I missing something. Are you claiming New Yorkers did not see a plane?

 

[Triggaaar]

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

Firstly, I'm not sure it was found at the foot of the WTC (provide link to proof it was if you like). Secondly, and most importantly, why would they bother placing it? It would add nothing to their version of events. It's not like you'd have people saying 'we don't believe planes hit the towers', but then going 'oh you found a passport, oh fair enough then, must be real'. Thirdly, didn't the front of one of the planes go through the building? The hijackers would have been there, so their passport would have exited the building straight away.

Explain the collapse of building 7 and how it was identical to that of a demolition job.

I've already done that - it wasn't identical, the top collapsed before the bottom, the insides were seen falling down, and there were not loud explosions just before the collapse.

Explain why Larry Silverstein was recorded saying "PULL IT"

He was recorded as he was giving an interview. He was quoting what the fire team said. They pulled their men out of the building. 'Pull it' is not a term used when buildings are demolished with explosives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43F54hR0NW8

Explain the reason why every cctv camera stretching the entire perimeter of the most guarded building on the planet (the Pentagon) was turned off ??

Well we've been talking about the WTC, so I'll stick to that for now. You can't give a credible argument for what happened at WTC.

 

[Juan Albion]

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.

Classic tinfoil thinking. String a whole bunch of false facts, lies, mysteries and coincidences together and say "explain them". Face reality, your brain has been used as a doormat.

 

[BadFish]

Classic tinfoil thinking. String a whole bunch of false facts, lies, mysteries and coincidences together and say "explain them". Face reality, your brain has been used as a doormat.

Yeah but how many coincidences and half truths need to be placed together before one jumps to the improbable and unlikely conclusion that they were all orchestrated and planned for nefarious purposes.

I think 7 to raise suspicion and 10* (15 if you can only find spurious links) to cry 'FACT!' and start calling everyone who doesn't agree a sheep.

* this can be done sooner if you can find some like minded nut jobs on the internet to agree with.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[colinz]

I'm sorry am I missing something. Are you claiming New Yorkers did not see a plane?

I don't know of any who did. That were not on the media payroll.

 

[BadFish]

I don't know of any who did. That were not on the media payroll.

Do you have any evidence of New Yorker eye witnesses challenging the fact that there were planes? I found some people saying they didn't see planes (they were inside buildings so that makes sense) but no eye witnesses that were adamant there were no planes.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[colinz]

Do you have any evidence of New Yorker eye witnesses challenging the fact that there were planes? I found some people saying they didn't see planes (they were inside buildings so that makes sense) but no eye witnesses that were adamant there were no planes.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

The onus is to prove that something actually happened. (plane crashing into building)

On the faked news network clips the 2nd hit happened and was over so quickly, any locals who were present may have just thought they missed it. Then they think it must have happened because they later saw it on TV.

In one of the videos featured in the video posted a few posts back, is the footage by Clifton Cloud he himself said that he can't actually remember seeing a plane until he got home and saw it on television.

 

[BadFish]

The onus is to prove that something actually happened. (plane crashing into building)

On the faked news network clips the 2nd hit happened and was over so quickly, any locals who were present may have just thought they missed it. Then they think it must have happened because they later saw it on TV.

In one of the videos featured in the video posted a few posts back, is the footage by Clifton Cloud he himself said that he can't actually remember seeing a plane until he got home and saw it on television.

I'll take that as a no then. I would expect there to be thousands of them, all over the message boards and you tube videos.

I would suggest that given the amount of videos there are showing the planes and from different angles, the onus is on yourself to prove that those videos are false.

At this stage I am happy with the evidence I have seen regarding the videos. Yes they could have been faked, and faked badly obviously. What I don't see is any evidence that they have been.

I agree about the second plane except I think that many locals would have missed it, rather than just thought they had. There must have been a huge amount of panic and confusion that day which may explain some of the inconsistencies. This of course doesn't mean that the planes were CGI'd on later.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[colinz]

I'll take that as a no then. I would expect there to be thousands of them, all over the message boards and you tube videos.

I would suggest that given the amount of videos there are showing the planes and from different angles, the onus is on yourself to prove that those videos are false.

At this stage I am happy with the evidence I have seen regarding the videos. Yes they could have been faked, and faked badly obviously. What I don't see is any evidence that they have been.

I agree about the second plane except I think that many locals would have missed it, rather than just thought they had. There must have been a huge amount of panic and confusion that day which may explain some of the inconsistencies. This of course doesn't mean that the planes were CGI'd on later.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I still say the onus is on you to prove that planes did hit the towers with or without eye witnesses.
All you have is some dodgy footage which you your self have said could have been faked. None of it is of high resolution despite a day of clear blue skies.

The only video footage which counts is what was shown live in real time. Which is laughable with a Jumbo Jet flying through a building and popping out the other side, with no deceleration and unscathed
A large Passenger Jumbo Jet cannot fly inside a building, and not crash into it raining down wreckage.


The only debate left is. Was the plane CGI inserted into real footage, or was the CGI plane inserted into pre recorded footage.
As someone has said if it was the latter it should have been noticed before going to air. Unless it was an over sight spotted after it was screened then subsequently covered up using a screen banner.(which it was)
If the CGI plane was inserted in real time. The Towers were probably being filmed live from a helicopter onto a Green screen, at the studio the CGI plane is inserted onto the Green Screen, the moving chopper footage then inadvertently drifts past over the CGI plane after it has met the building. The nose cone becomes exposed going past the building, appearing to come out the other side of the building.

And below is a laughable comment about why the plane must have flown through the building.

Thirdly, didn't the front of one of the planes go through the building? The hijackers would have been there, so their passport would have exited the building straight away.

 

[BadFish]

I still say the onus is on you to prove that planes did hit the towers with or without eye witnesses.
All you have is some dodgy footage which you your self have said could have been faked. None of it is of high resolution despite a day of clear blue skies.

The only video footage which counts is what was shown live in real time. Which is laughable with a Jumbo Jet flying through a building and popping out the other side, with no deceleration and unscathed
A large Passenger Jumbo Jet cannot fly inside a building, and not crash into it raining down wreckage.


The only debate left is. Was the plane CGI inserted into real footage, or was the CGI plane inserted into pre recorded footage.
As someone has said if it was the latter it should have been noticed before going to air. Unless it was an over sight spotted after it was screened then subsequently covered up using a screen banner.(which it was)
If the CGI plane was inserted in real time. The Towers were probably being filmed live from a helicopter onto a Green screen, at the studio the CGI plane is inserted onto the Green Screen, the moving chopper footage then inadvertently drifts past over the CGI plane after it has met the building. The nose cone becomes exposed going past the building, appearing to come out the other side of the building.

This begs the question, why bother with planes? Surely it would have been far easier to demolish the towers and then blame it on a successful bomb plot. No need to take the gamble off fooling thousands in to thinking they saw something they didn't. No need for suspect CGI footage. The bonus with this would have been that one of the terrorist organisations would have claimed responsibility for the bombs within a few hours.

Even if one accepts your ideas (without any evidence I might add) your overall theory is still full of holes.

That said I have still not seen anything that has any depth of evidence that is making me question the accepted wisdom of what happened that day.

If you don't feel the onus is on you to prove anything then I can't help but wonder what your intentions are on this thread?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Megazone]

Typical Conspiracy theorists. Always seem to be debating the same old crap year after year...

If only they would take influence from the ones who actuallly know the facts.

 

[BadFish]

Typical Conspiracy theorist. Always seem to be debating the same old crap year after year...

Your posts on this thread are brilliant.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Megazone]

Your posts on this thread are brilliant.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Thank you oh wise one

 

[BadFish]

Thank you oh wise one

The Truth used at call me that! Coincidence? You must be a government agent.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Megazone]

The Truth used at call me that! Coincidence? You must be a government agent.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Yes, I'm a government agent.

Why state the obvious when we all know what I did to Jill Dando?

Anyway, let's get back to disproving all the conspiracies. We have a group mission to succeed and I've a feeling we are getting close to winning this battle. You're doing well Badfish, just don't give up. You've got this Nick Fella user almost cornered. Inspirational stuff indeed. Your children will be proud.

 

[BadFish]

Yes, I'm a government agent.

Why state the obvious when we all know what I did to Jill Dando?

No variety in post quality.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[brighton fella]

Firstly, I'm not sure it was found at the foot of the WTC (provide link to proof it was if you like). Secondly, and most importantly, why would they bother placing it? It would add nothing to their version of events. It's not like you'd have people saying 'we don't believe planes hit the towers', but then going 'oh you found a passport, oh fair enough then, must be real'. Thirdly, didn't the front of one of the planes go through the building? The hijackers would have been there, so their passport would have exited the building straight away.

I've already done that - it wasn't identical, the top collapsed before the bottom, the insides were seen falling down, and there were not loud explosions just before the collapse.

He was recorded as he was giving an interview. He was quoting what the fire team said. They pulled their men out of the building. 'Pull it' is not a term used when buildings are demolished with explosives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43F54hR0NW8

Well we've been talking about the WTC, so I'll stick to that for now. You can't give a credible argument for what happened at WTC.

The passport was key in enabling them to point blame, how else could they blame Bin Laden.

Building 7 my friend was identical to that of a controlled demolition job and that was because it was a controlled demolition job, .The footage suggests nothing else, Yes you are right the top did give the appearance to give way first .Again that is no different to what you would expect to see when watching a controlled demolition. .

Finally and regarding your debunking clip, How could certain people have prior knowledge that building 7 was about to collapse when never in history has a steel structured building collapsed solely from fire alone, Steel structured buildings are made to withstand intense fire as proven time and time again worldwide, So the lame excuse that "intense" fire was the reason for the building to collapse isn't a excuse that will wash with me,

 

[brighton fella]

Typical Conspiracy theorists. Always seem to be debating the same old crap year after year...

If only they would take influence from the ones who actuallly know the facts.

Oh what expersts who are contracted by main government you mean, Sure i will.

 

[Megazone]

No variety in post quality.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

That's the spirit Badfish. Don't give up!

Only the fools choose to ignore what they find insanely untrue.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

The passport was key in enabling them to point blame, how else could they blame Bin Laden.

Building 7 my friend was identical to that of a controlled demolition job and that was because it was a controlled demolition job, .The footage suggests nothing else, Yes you are right the top did give the appearance to give way first .Again that is no different to what you would expect to see when watching a controlled demolition. .

Finally and regarding your debunking clip, How could certain people have prior knowledge that building 7 was about to collapse when never in history has a steel structured building collapsed solely from fire alone, Steel structured buildings are made to withstand intense fire as proven time and time again worldwide, So the lame excuse that "intense" fire was the reason for the building to collapse isn't a excuse that will wash with me,

Interesting.

And what was the reason the building was blown up well after the other two and not, for example, when one of the other MASSIVE buildings next to it collapsed?

Personally, if I was faking a building collapse, I would probably do it when one of the other two skyscrapers next to it came tumbling down to the ground.....