nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Not another 911 thread

TalkieWalkie

Some pretty groovy new evidence regarding the twins on 911, This ties in several different theories. Pretty good watch for all

Bout 22 mins total

Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFIGeINof0Y

Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfEpXAYwVIo

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

I owe no apology for your inability to understand the distinction between a question and a statement. Should you wish to apologise for making a false accusation, then fire away. I've nothing to hide btw - anonimity might be your thing, but I've no problem in that regard. Oh, and thanks for caring.

Your question was making the assumption that I believed in three different things. Read it back. Then find where I agreed with any of them. I displayed disbelief in the ability of a passport to survive a fireball, I made no definitive statements.
You wanted to know "what flavour of delusion" was "at play".
You were stating that I would be agreeing with one of the things you mentioned, even though you puntuacted it with a question mark.

As for your anonymity, thats your business, but you're not making yourself out to be a particularly likeable person at the moment.

meglome

I could understand if only a passport was found, I think you guys need to stop trusting CT sites. There were lot's of small flammable items found outside the buildings, paperwork, id's, plane seats etc. In a big explosion small light objects will get blasted out... this isn't new or unknown and if you actually look at what was found seems very plausible.

My name is URL

meglome wrote: »

I could understand if only a passport was found, I think you guys need to stop trusting CT sites. There were lot's of small flammable items found outside the buildings, paperwork, id's, plane seats etc. In a big explosion small light objects will get blasted out... this isn't new or unknown.

But only 1 passport.. which happened to belong to one of the terrorists. You have to admit that it's extremely improbable for that to happen.. even if it did happen.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

Your question was making the assumption that I believed in three different things. Read it back. Then find where I agreed with any of them. I displayed disbelief in the ability of a passport to survive a fireball, I made no definitive statements.
You wanted to know "what flavour of delusion" was "at play".
You were stating that I would be agreeing with one of the things you mentioned, even though you puntuacted it with a question mark.

As for your anonymity, thats your business, but you're not making yourself out to be a particularly likeable person at the moment.

Still here eh? I thought you said were off (more than once).

Nope you still don't get it - let's break it down:

I post details of the plane debris recovered, including paper objects. You dispute the evidence:

If you want to believe that you're welcome my friend.

to which I respond:

Just curious - you have problems with paper surviving the crash, or you have problems with all the plane debris found in the area because the 'truth is there wasn't a plane - but a secret technology ball fired at the building'?

Anything 'assumed' there? Nope - just a question.

Now it transpires that you are in camp A. And no need for the hissy fit and false accusations.

alastair

My name is URL wrote: »

But only 1 passport.. which happened to belong to one of the terrorists. You have to admit that it's extremely improbable for that to happen.. even if it did happen.

It's just a coincidence, and like all coincidences it seems unlikely.

But a hijacker would have 1. had a passport (many on the flight wouldn't have), and 2. Been up at the front of the aircraft, which might well have been an optimum spot for objects thrown from the building. The odds might not have been that great.

Di0genes

My name is URL wrote: »

But only 1 passport.. which happened to belong to one of the terrorists. You have to admit that it's extremely improbable for that to happen.. even if it did happen.

How do you know that was the only passport that was recovered?

meglome

My name is URL wrote: »

But only 1 passport.. which happened to belong to one of the terrorists. You have to admit that it's extremely improbable for that to happen.. even if it did happen.

Why is it improbable, maybe the hijacker had it sitting on his seat? Some of the seat cushions got blasted out and the life vests. Why isn't is improbable that they found other id's?

Better questions again would be how many passports were even on the plane to begin with? did Americans need a passport to fly on an internal flight in 2001? (I believe they didn't but i don't have a link). If the hijackers' passports made up a large percentage of the passports on the plane then it's exactly what you'd expect to find not the other way around.

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

Still here eh? I thought you said were off (more than once).

Nope you still don't get it - let's break it down:

I post details of the plane debris recovered, including paper objects. You dispute the evidence:

to which I respond:

Anything 'assumed' there? Nope - just a question.

Now it transpires that you are in camp A. And no need for the hissty fit and false accusations.

If I misread that I accept culpability. We all make mistakes

As for the discussion after that, you were out of line on more than one occassion.
You continually insulted me as if it was perfectly acceptable for you to do so.
Here's the posts,
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67481755&postcount=101

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67481797&postcount=102

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67482019&postcount=105

Now I'll accept I misread one of your posts (and in retrospect hardly covered myself in glory in the process, I should have been paying attention), but I'm not going to believe for one minute that your behaviour was accpetable in the posts I've linked to above.

[Deleted User]

Bog Warrior wrote: »

So why wasn't it found buried under the rubble?

Because when they where clearing away rubble their main concern was not finding wreckage, but people and later people's remains. And that's assuming it was even still recognisable as a black box after the crash and collapse.

Note how you have left my question unanswered.

If they went to the trouble of faking not only that one passport but all manner of other paper stuff and IDs, why didn't they just fake a blackbox?

Bog Warrior wrote: »

Absolute nonsense I'm not getting involved in

So no you can't distinguish it from making stuff up.

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

Just curious - you have problems with paper surviving the crash, or you have problems with all the plane debris found in the area because the 'truth is there wasn't a plane - but a secret technology ball fired at the building'? Just need to know which flavour of delusion is at play here.

Just felt I should point out that it was the last sentence above that angered me into my initial response.
That is a sentence that is in itself quite insulting also.
I felt I should repost it as Alastair quoted the rest of that post and left that sentence out.

TalkieWalkie

Umm, maybe you all forgot to watch this ? You cant argue against this evidence LOL...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga89OCTf0jE

[/CENTER]

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Umm, maybe you all forgot to watch this ? You cant argue against this evidence LOL...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga89OCTf0jE
[/CENTER]

Yes you can, leaving aside the impossibility of real time, or near real time compositing there's y'know, THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO SAW THE PLANES.

TalkieWalkie

Di0genes wrote: »

Yes you can, leaving aside the impossibility of real time, or near real time compositing there's y'know, THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO SAW THE PLANES.

no there isnt

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

no there isnt

Yes Manhattan on a busy tuesday morning around rush hour is just a fecking ghost town.

TalkieWalkie

Di0genes wrote: »

Yes Manhattan on a busy tuesday morning around rush hour is just a fecking ghost town.

Many people saw a plane, not a 737, there was a small plane circling the building. Then boom, there was an explosion.

Don't you think it strange that there is not plane on the live news footage ?

I mean, when you watch it, don't you think, "where is the plane" ?

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Many people saw a plane, not a 737

Maybe because the plane was a 767?

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Many people saw a plane, not a 737, there was a small plane circling the building. Then boom, there was an explosion.

Don't you think it strange that there is not plane on the live news footage ?

I mean, when you watch it, don't you think, "where is the plane" ?

So what everyone in new york saw a small plane fly around the world trade centre, and what when they went home, saw the repeats on tv of a jumbo jet, and thought, "weird thats not what I saw", and simply forgot about it?

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Don't you think it strange that there is not plane on the live news footage ?

I mean, when you watch it, don't you think, "where is the plane" ?

Not really - given that I saw the plane on the live footage.

Bog Warrior

King Mob wrote: »

So no you can't distinguish it from making stuff up.

I'm not sure what you don't understand here. Beans asked whether anyone had a theory, I told him of one I heard. You come along asking me to prove things I never said I could prove.

Now you are asking me to explain the difference between that and making something up??
What's the problem? Do you not know what the difference is?
What kind of twisted logic argument are you trying to involve me in?

TalkieWalkie

Di0genes wrote: »

So what everyone in new york saw a small plane fly around the world trade centre, and what when they went home, saw the repeats on tv of a jumbo jet, and thought, "weird thats not what I saw", and simply forgot about it?

Yes.

Play these simultaneously. Then explain to me why there is no plane in one clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3JYkZXxsfk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60KPOhRgb2Q

#Hmm i balls'd that up. Try again

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

#Hmm i balls'd that up. Try again

The conspiracy strikes again.

[Deleted User]

Bog Warrior wrote: »

I'm not sure what you don't understand here. Beans asked whether anyone had a theory, I told him of one I heard. You come along asking me to prove things I never said I could prove.

Now you are asking me to explain the difference between that and making something up??
What's the problem? Do you not know what the difference is?
What kind of twisted logic argument are you trying to involve me in?

Let's take an example.

The twin towers weren't hit by planes, but giant birds.
I saw a video where a ornithologist described it as a giant bird he was familiar with.
I haven't try to substantiate this.

Now can you please show me the difference between this statement which I've just made up is any way different from yours?

thecommander

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Yes.

Play these simultaneously. Then explain to me why there is no plane in one clip

Ehhh? Different shots used in an edit. Quite simple really.

digme

talkie are you on about the white plane in the top right corner of the at the end of the first video ?

[Deleted User]

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Yes.

Play these simultaneously. Then explain to me why there is no plane in one clip

#Hmm i balls'd that up. Try again

Because the first was showing a live feed and then the station cut away to another live feed at an unfortunate moment.

The second was showing the entirety of the recording of first the live feed.

It's not a wild concept here or anything.

TalkieWalkie

thecommander wrote: »

Ehhh? Different shots used in an edit. Quite simple really.

Same angle, same time. 1 shows a plane, 2 doesnt

digme wrote: »

talkie are you on about the white plane in the top right corner of the at the end of the first video ?

No. There is no plane in the second video.
Was the plane white ? Looks black in most clips. It was a nice sunny day wasn't it ?

King Mob wrote: »

Because the first was showing a live feed and then the station cut away to another live feed at an unfortunate moment.

The second was showing the entirety of the recording of first the live feed.

It's not a wild concept here or anything.

That doesn't explain why there is no plane in the second clip.

thecommander

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Same angle, same time. 1 shows a plane, 2 doesnt

What time in the videos is it?

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

That doesn't explain why there is no plane in the second clip.

Because someone edited it out? Because it's a cruddy lo-res video from an unknown source and unknown generation? Why not ask the explanation for the visible plane in the first clip? The unedited live streams from CBS, CNN, and NBC are available to view on archive.org in somewhat better quality than either of thse clips (I posted the link earlier). The plane is visible in those. As indeed the plane was visible to people on the ground - some of whom videoed and photographed the plane - here's another link to mull over: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/United_Airlines_Flight_175

TalkieWalkie

thecommander wrote: »

What time in the videos is it?

It doesn't actually state in the video, the time.

The smoke patterns are the same and the explosions occur simultaneously. Buildings and boats positions, are the same.

It's the same time in both clips.

[Deleted User]

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

That doesn't explain why there is no plane in the second clip.

**** compression probably.

But lets get this straight. you're claiming that they somehow added in an image into a live feed only to then cut away before the plane hits, then remove said image from subsequent showings?
Why does this make sense to you?