Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Not another 911 thread

Options
1…6791112…15

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    TalkieWalkie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭TalkieWalkie


    Di0genes wrote: »
    That's not editing it's vision mixing and simple graphics overlay over simple static shots.

    There's a world of difference.

    Di0genes wrote: »
    The theory isn't sustained by any facts, and even if it was true, 17 seconds isn't enough time to composite a plane into shot.

    Maybe it's not enough time for you to do it. Fact is in the "live" footage on archive.org. On 2 separate stations you can hear a distinct beep then a 17 second delay, then reaction from the anchors "who didn't see the plane they broadcast".
    Again, you would know this if you saw the evidence i put forward. I gotta say everything 2 or 3 times.
    Di0genes wrote: »
    And exactly how and when were the plane parts planted? Do you think people would have noticed someone bringing a car with a chunk of landing gear stuck into it's engine while this was all happening.

    Not necessarily. Of course you suggest the most ridiculous scenario :rolleyes: . They could feck it out of a helicopter, there were many in the skies that day. [/QUOTE]

    Di0genes wrote: »
    So, again, your argument is that there were no planes, no one of the the 8 million people in new york looked up while either of the planes crashed, or if they did, they saw a small plane, and just forgot about it, or didn't worry about it. Then a team of what ninjas? Planted dozens of pieces of airplane wreckage around the WTC complex, and to top it off they planeted evidence that Saudis not Iraqis carried.

    Congratulations. You've implicated tens of thousands of people in the most complex and brilliant fraud ever, and implied they're also morons.

    ALL THOSE PEOPLE WERE LOOKING UP SCREAMING BECAUSE THEY SAW A HUGE EXPLOSION. YOU CANT HEAR THEM SAYING "JET" "JET" "JET" EXCEPT FOR A COUPLE OF SET UP CAM JOBS


  • Options
    #243
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    TalkieWalkie wrote: »
    Regarding finding plane parts at all sites.. It is fairly obvious if you want to make it look like a plane crashed at a particular area, YOU PLANT SOME PARTS !!! kinda like a cop setting someone up on a drug charge, they must plant the drugs first lmfao - it's not rocket science

    Yeah - you plant bits of planes, items belonging to the passengers, and bits of their bodies, all transported from Boston, and distributed in downtown NYC 45 minutes later. And you con hundreds of people into believing they saw an actual plane hit the building. What's not plausible!?

    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html


  • Options
    #244
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    TalkieWalkie wrote: »
    They could feck it out of a helicopter, there were many in the skies that day.

    The helicopters that made it down from Boston in 45 minutes? And no-one noticed dropping anything? Those ones?


  • Options
    #245
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    So ignoring the fact your arguments are profoundly ridiculous, I'm morbidly curious what you think caused the explosions.


  • Options
    #246
    TalkieWalkie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭TalkieWalkie


    alastair wrote: »
    Yeah - you plant bits of planes YES, items belonging to the passengers YES, and bits of their bodies DID YOU FIND THEIR DODY PARTS ?, all transported from Boston IUNNO, and distributed in downtown NYC 45 minutes later YES. And you con hundreds of people into believing they saw an actual plane hit the building ABSOLUTELY. What's not plausible!? NOTHING

    Billions of people believe in stranger things.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    King Mob wrote: »
    So ignoring the fact your arguments are profoundly ridiculous, I'm morbidly curious what you think caused the explosions.

    Ah now - the secret technology ball of course!


  • Options
    #248
    TalkieWalkie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭TalkieWalkie


    alastair wrote: »
    The helicopters that made it down from Boston in 45 minutes? And no-one noticed dropping anything? Those ones?

    Several news reporters sighted planes circling the buildings.


  • Options
    #249
    TalkieWalkie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭TalkieWalkie


    King Mob wrote: »
    So ignoring the fact your arguments are profoundly ridiculous, I'm morbidly curious what you think caused the explosions.

    Welcome back mob :rolleyes:

    Thats a silly question. Here is a better one. If there were no planes, what caused the impact damage to the building ?

    Answer : I have no idea.


  • Options
    #250
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    TalkieWalkie wrote: »
    DID YOU FIND THEIR DODY PARTS ?
    A total of 293 intact bodies were found, and recovery workers unearthed hundreds of parts each day. As time went on, the remains found were smaller and smaller - fragments of flesh, pieces of bone.

    The identification process moved quickly to microscopes and computers as forensic specialists used DNA, and several laboratories across the nation joined the undertaking.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/dailynews_halfvictimsidd.html
    DNA extractions were done on every one of the 19,906 remains, and 4,735 of those have been identified. As many as 200 remains have been linked to a single person.

    The 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked planes - 33 from Flight 11, which struck the north tower, and 12 from Flight 175, which hit the south tower.

    Using DNA alone, 673 people were identified. Using dental records only, 187 were identified; fingerprints only, 71; photo identification, 16; miscellaneous X-rays, 45.


  • Options
    #251
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    TalkieWalkie wrote: »
    Thats a silly question. Here is a better one. If there were no planes, what caused the impact damage to the building ?

    Answer : I have no idea.

    Well considering the video you posted showed planes crashing maybe you should start there?

    And any photos of these planes dropping the wreckage?
    Any eyewitness reports?

    Anything other that your insistence to explain an increasingly stupid theory?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    TalkieWalkie wrote: »
    Several news reporters sighted planes circling the buildings.

    And your super-fast helicopters with their load from Boston - did any single witness of the thousands there mention the lowering of debris onto the WTC site and surroundings?


  • Options
    #253
    TalkieWalkie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭TalkieWalkie


    alastair wrote: »
    http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/dailynews_halfvictimsidd.html

    lol, Im guessing government employees did the DNA testing :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #254
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    TalkieWalkie wrote: »
    lol, Im guessing government employees did the DNA testing :rolleyes:

    How many more people does that mean were in on it?


  • Options
    #255
    TalkieWalkie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭TalkieWalkie


    alastair wrote: »
    And your super-fast helicopters with their load from Boston - did any singe witness of the thousands there mention the lowering of debris onto the WTC site and surroundings?

    Don't really understand this so I'll wing it.

    When there is a large explosion in a large building, you'll be running, not examining a small barely/not visible propeller plane, probably behind/over a large cloud of smoke.


  • Options
    #256
    TalkieWalkie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭TalkieWalkie


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well considering the video you posted showed planes crashing maybe you should start there?

    And any photos of these planes dropping the wreckage?
    Any eyewitness reports?

    Anything other that your insistence to explain an increasingly stupid theory?

    Are you annoyed Mob ?

    What's with all the harsh words ? Take a deep breath and try calm down :rolleyes:

    increasingly stupid theory?

    your arguments are profoundly ridiculous


  • Options
    #257
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    TalkieWalkie wrote: »
    lol, Im guessing government employees did the DNA testing :rolleyes:

    They're all in on it it tell you! Them and their invisible helicopters and visible fake planes.


  • Options
    #258
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    TalkieWalkie wrote: »
    increasingly stupid theory?

    Actually - you're right - it's been consistently stupid from start to finish - and there's no doubt it's finished. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #259
    TalkieWalkie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭TalkieWalkie


    alastair wrote: »
    They're all in on it it tell you! Them and their invisible helicopters and visible fake planes.

    Now your getting it.


  • Options
    #260
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    TalkieWalkie wrote: »
    Are you annoyed Mob ?

    What's with all the harsh words ? Take a deep breath and try calm down :rolleyes:

    increasingly stupid theory?

    your arguments are profoundly ridiculous

    You supposedly want the truth but at every turn you ignore it.


  • Options
    #261
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    TalkieWalkie wrote: »
    Don't really understand this so I'll wing it.

    When there is a large explosion in a large building, you'll be running, not examining a small barely/not visible propeller plane, probably behind/over a large cloud of smoke.

    That'd be the small propeller plane that carried truckloads of aircraft debris (including jet engines), as well as the body parts, and personal artifacts, and made it down from Boston in 45 minutes - that one? The one that no camera managed to capture despite the blanket coverage of the area?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    TalkieWalkie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭TalkieWalkie


    alastair wrote: »
    Actually - you're right - it's been consistently stupid from start to finish - and there's no doubt it's finished. :rolleyes:

    ummm, they were supposed to be quoted.

    It's good to know the type of debate that keeps you interested, the self confessed "stupid" type lol


  • Options
    #263
    TalkieWalkie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭TalkieWalkie


    alastair wrote: »
    Actually - you're right - it's been consistently stupid from start to finish - and there's no doubt it's finished. :rolleyes:
    alastair wrote: »
    That'd be the small propeller plane that carried truckloads of aircraft debris (including jet engines), as well as the body parts, and personal artifacts, and made it down from Boston in 45 minutes - that one? The one that no camera managed to capture despite the blanket coverage of the area?

    Is this how you usually finish a debate ? Or did you finish then restart ?


  • Options
    #264
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    TalkieWalkie wrote: »
    ummm, they were supposed to be quoted.

    It's good to know the type of debate that keeps you interested, the self confessed "stupid" type lol

    It's the clowns at the circus that I enjoy the most.


  • Options
    #265
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    TalkieWalkie wrote: »
    Are you annoyed Mob ?

    What's with all the harsh words ? Take a deep breath and try calm down :rolleyes:

    increasingly stupid theory?

    your arguments are profoundly ridiculous

    So no, you've no pictures or evidence?
    I for one am shocked.

    So much for looking for the truth...


  • Options
    #266
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    TalkieWalkie wrote: »
    Is this how you usually finish a debate ? Or did you finish then restart ?

    Debate? Your 'theory' is a busted flush, and has been since you posted the first video. All that's left is the slow, slow, acknowledgment of the fact on your part - the car crash appeal is most engaging though.


  • Options
    #267
    TalkieWalkie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭TalkieWalkie


    alastair wrote: »
    It's the clowns at the circus that I enjoy the most.

    Okay, so you enjoy stupid debates and clowns at circuses, that's... uh nice.


  • Options
    #268
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    TalkieWalkie wrote: »
    Okay, so you enjoy stupid debates and clowns at circuses, that's... uh nice.

    yeah - rather than laugh at people being flown into buildings, I like to laugh at people acting the idiot. Different strokes.


  • Options
    #269
    TalkieWalkie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭TalkieWalkie


    alastair wrote: »
    Debate? Your 'theory' is a busted flush, and has been since you posted the first video. All that's left is the slow, slow, acknowledgment of the fact on your part - the car crash appeal is most engaging though.

    Hmmm, is it not a debate if one side think anothers theory is "stupid" ?

    Yup, it's still a debate. And it's not doing you any justice atm


  • Options
    #270
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    TalkieWalkie wrote: »
    Hmmm, is it not a debate if one side think anothers theory is "stupid" ?

    Yup, it's still a debate.

    Nope. A debate requires deliberation from both sides - something that's notable by it's absence in your 'theory'.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    TalkieWalkie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭TalkieWalkie


    alastair wrote: »
    Nope. A debate requires deliberation from both sides - something that's notable by it's absence in your 'theory'.

    Eah ? notably absent ?


Advertisement