there was no moon landing .... discus

[One Love]

This is your original post where you said your sister in law worked at the WTC.



Are you now saying that she worked at the WTC, but was not at work at the time because she'd been evacuated,

or on her way to work,

or had the day off but lived in the area, or was doing some shopping in the area on her day off.

As for what she claims to have seen, all I could tell her is that it wouldn't have been a Boeing 767.

Yeah thousands and thousands of people witnessed with their own eyes (not on TV pictures) that is wasn't a 767 and they've all kept quiet about it.

Not one person can be found to tell the truth.

 

[readingstockport]

I genuinely cannot believe the arrogance of this quote.

No, no, no.
Colinz wasn't there, knows noone who WAS there, has read some bad science on a conspiracy website and misunderstood it, spoke to someone who doesn't fully understand aviation theory and misunderstood the little he heard.

He OBVIOUSLY knows more about the subject than any mere eye witness, any mere scientist or anyone else who actually knows what they are talking about.

 

[One Love]

 

[Frutos]

No, no, no.
Colinz wasn't there, knows noone who WAS there, has read some bad science on a conspiracy website and misunderstood it, spoke to someone who doesn't fully understand aviation theory and misunderstood the little he heard.

He OBVIOUSLY knows more about the subject than any mere eye witness, any mere scientist or anyone else who actually knows what they are talking about.

I stand duly corrected.

 

[One Love]

No, no, no.
Colinz wasn't there, knows noone who WAS there, has read some bad science on a conspiracy website and misunderstood it, spoke to someone who doesn't fully understand aviation theory and misunderstood the little he heard.

He OBVIOUSLY knows more about the subject than any mere eye witness, any mere scientist or anyone else who actually knows what they are talking about.

IF any power ever commits a shocking atrocity they will be relying on idiots like Colinz to spread so much misinformation that any chance of it coming out will vanish.

He thinks he is trying to open peoples' minds when in fact he is reinforcing the official story and actually working for the people he is trying to discredit.

LOL

 

[Manx Shearwater]

Isaac Newton was wrong too, let's not forget that bit. I'm tempted to write to the Royal Institution and inform them of their massive oversight for the past few hundred years, and that they need to contact colinz so they can begin re-writing all those millions of science books currently in circulation. Who'd a thunk it eh?

 

[pastafarian]

Are you now saying that she worked at the WTC, but was not at work at the time because she'd been evacuated,or on her way to work, or had the day off but lived in the area, or was doing some shopping in the area on her day off.

i know exactly who she worked for but as i said before it is totally irrelevant,do you seriously think if she was shopping or not it has any relevance on what occurred at the south tower. Of course it doesnt that is why you said the following ......which has no relevance to what job or what shopping trip people were on that day

As for what she claims to have seen, all I could tell her is that it wouldn't have been a Boeing 767.

and the clincher is the sentence isALL,you have nothing else to offer except it wasnt a 767,so you basically have nothing, you dont know what happened except it wasnt a 767,as you have absolutely nothing to offer in way of an alternative explanation if it wasnt a 767 i can only presume you enjoy taunting the victims of 9/11 with your theories ........well done you!!!

 

[pastafarian]

and im going to clarify that before you get on your high horse......people affected by 9/11 find your theories incredibly offensive.......not that you give a toss.

 

[colinz]

i know exactly who she worked for but as i said before it is totally irrelevant,do you seriously think if she was shopping or not it has any relevance on what occurred at the south tower. Of course it doesnt that is why you said the following ......which has no relevance to what job or what shopping trip people were on that day



and the clincher is the sentence isALL,you have nothing else to offer except it wasnt a 767,so you basically have nothing, you dont know what happened except it wasnt a 767,as you have absolutely nothing to offer in way of an alternative explanation if it wasnt a 767 i can only presume you enjoy taunting the victims of 9/11 with your theories ........well done you!!!

If it was a 767 why the need to screen fake footage (planes do not fly into & disappear inside buildings).

If there were thousands of witnesses why the need to screen footage of people faking, having been an eye witness.

I didn't say she was shopping, it was one of a few options I listed as to what she could have been doing in the WTC locallity, after you changed the content of your original post.

from this

well i have a credible witness [MENTION=17480]colinz[/MENTION] my sister in law worked at the WTC complex and saw the second plane hit the WTC.She knows what she saw,its etched on her brain for the rest of her life,she doesnt like to talk about it,but i have seen her have a run in with a "truther" before and it made her cry.so i have a question for you,

if you were face to face with my sister in law and she said to you explain exactly what i saw crash into the south tower? how would you answer?

to this

Originally Posted by pastafarian
It is completely and utterly irrelevant. She was outside.So stop stalling and just answer the original question......or do you need to know what she was wearing?

im half expecting you to ask exactly where outside.....but you cant be that stupid........can you??

It is not unreasonable for me to ask where your sister in law worked (as someone else has already pointed out).
Because otherwise she must be referring to what she saw on television.
Also it would not be unreasonable to ask exactly where she was, when as you say she witnessed a plane hit one of the WTC towers.

 

[Pevenseagull]

I wish I'd never started this

or do I?


or did I?


only some f***ing idiot thinks they know the TRUTH!!!

 

[Pevenseagull]

.... and what am I doing up at this time of night/ morning? ??


a very good question

 

[pastafarian]

It is not unreasonable for me to ask where your sister in law worked (as someone else has already pointed out).
Because otherwise she must be referring to what she saw on television.
Also it would not be unreasonable to ask exactly where she was, when as you say she witnessed a plane hit one of the WTC towers.

oh you really are grabbing at straws,if you dont know where she worked she must have seen it only only on TV

ive told you where she was.....in the street.....but it seems you want to know exactly what she was doing she was on the way to work when the day went bad,she wasnt shopping,she hadnt been evacuated from the north tower just on the way way to work like 1000`s of others......so there you have it.you have all the info you need to answer the original question.

 

[pastafarian]

I wish I'd never started this

i agree

 

[pastafarian]

.... and what am I doing up at this time of night/ morning? ??


a very good question

have you got any booze? ive just run out and im not happy

 

[beorhthelm]

If it was a 767 why the need to screen fake footage (planes do not fly into & disappear inside buildings).

there wasnt faked footage. free your mind to this possibility. ask yourself, why fake footage of two plane crashed to coverup explosions when the explosions would have sufficed and done the job. people would have noticed if there hadnt been any plane "i was watching the burning tower and i saw nothing then an explosion on the other", and they went to a lot of effort to place pieces of plane debris on the ground (presumably from some trucks round the corner. no one would notice a lorry pull up at the base of the tower, stop to unload piece of mangled plane and drive off). meanwhile you have to bring in hundreds journalists, cameramen, technicians and TV producers into the plan, making sure they all know to cut to the fake footage at the right time and not mention any off this to anyone. then find and destroy any possible footage that shows something else, a part they clearly must have dont very well as there is no footage of anything else.

just accept reality.

 

[Pevenseagull]

have you got any booze? ive just run out and im not happy

gin, I only have gin

 

[colinz]

there wasnt faked footage. free your mind to this possibility. ask yourself, why fake footage of two plane crashed to coverup explosions when the explosions would have sufficed and done the job. people would have noticed if there hadnt been any plane "i was watching the burning tower and i saw nothing then an explosion on the other", and they went to a lot of effort to place pieces of plane debris on the ground (presumably from some trucks round the corner. no one would notice a lorry pull up at the base of the tower, stop to unload piece of mangled plane and drive off). meanwhile you have to bring in hundreds journalists, cameramen, technicians and TV producers into the plan, making sure they all know to cut to the fake footage at the right time and not mention any off this to anyone. then find and destroy any possible footage that shows something else, a part they clearly must have dont very well as there is no footage of anything else.

just accept reality.

why fake footage of two plane crashed to coverup explosions when the explosions would have sufficed and done the job.

The explosions themselves were not meant to bring the towers down, that was to happen later on with the controlled demolition. The explosions were just to simulate the Boeings hitting the Towers, synchronised with the fake footage shown on TV.

But Fox f***ed it up with the nose cone of the CGI plane coming out the other side of the tower. Because when the CGI plane was inserted they didn't account for the footage of WTC2 drifting to the right, as a result of having to give the impression that it was all being filmed from their helicopter.

Then the networks went into damage control, by having to bombard our TV screens with the faked Hezakhani footage of the plane seamlessly disappearing into WTC2.
Followed later on by screening footage of the clown eye witness in the Harley Tea shirt, a cameraman contracted to Fox.
Within a couple of hours of it all happening this guy in the Harley T shirt shows up already referring to the WTC as ground zero, telling the Fox interviewer how the "plane reamed right on through coming out the other side". Then goes on to explain how the Towers fell due to structural failure because the heat was so intense.
Plus he seems pretty chippa for someone that has supposedly witnessed such devastation.

 

[tezz79]

Do you actually believe this guff you're typing ?

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

The explosions themselves were not meant to bring the towers down, that was to happen later on with the controlled demolition. The explosions were just to simulate the Boeings hitting the Towers, synchronised with the fake footage shown on TV.

But Fox f***ed it up with the nose cone of the CGI plane coming out the other side of the tower. Because when the CGI plane was inserted they didn't account for the footage of WTC2 drifting to the right, as a result of having to give the impression that it was all being filmed from their helicopter.

Then the networks went into damage control, by having to bombard our TV screens with the faked Hezakhani footage of the plane seamlessly disappearing into WTC2.
Followed later on by screening footage of the clown eye witness in the Harley Tea shirt, a cameraman contracted to Fox.
Within a couple of hours of it all happening this guy in the Harley T shirt shows up already referring to the WTC as ground zero, telling the Fox interviewer how the "plane reamed right on through coming out the other side". Then goes on to explain how the Towers fell due to structural failure because the heat was so intense.
Plus he seems pretty chippa for someone that has supposedly witnessed such devastation.

Would you be able to give me an assessment of how many people would need to know about the plot in order for this to happen?

Ball park figure?

 

[sten_super]

I've really tried not to respond to collinz inane ramblings, but I've finally decided to join my name to the list of sane people attempting to teach him some logic.

If we take as given that the US government (or Illuminati, it matters not for this thought experiment) did want to engender war in Afghanistan, and needed a terrorist attack on a US icon to achieve this, which of the following methods would be most straightforward?

i) Find some willing Muslim martyrs. Covertly arrange (without revealing your true identity) for them to receive sufficient training to fly a plane into a building, and allow them to smuggle the necessary weapons onto a plane and crash into said building.

ii) Put some strategically loaded explosives in the WTC. Blow them up, and attribute it to Muslim terrorists. 'Find' the necessary bomb-making equipment in a nearby house.

iii) Get hundreds of people across the entire TV media to take part in a conspiracy whereby missiles flown into the twin towers are disguised as planes using advanced CGI, but in which you have only seconds/minutes in which to arrange the requisite footage. Then arrange fake witnesses for TV interviews.

Which of these three methods would you choose? Which would be most likely to be successful? Which would be the most easy to keep secret (i.e. thinking about how many bribes may have to be paid)?

Collinz, your conspiracy theory fails simply because it is a completely implausible way of achieving the end result that you think they wanted. I absolutely believe that governments (and some are worse than others) have the capability to do bad things - but I don't think they are stupid. They would pick the easiest, and most likely to succeed, method of achieving their aims. The theory you put forward completely fails that test.