Miguel Sanchez Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipperyP Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, Miguel Sanchez said: Got in before PhD Thobber. You can see the conspiracy happening before our eyes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 About 6/10 Americans believe in God though. More than that probably.Not everyone who questions the official narrative is a crack pot though, although the "Truthers" are a rather dishonest bunch at times and come out with ridiculous conclusions such as "The twin towers and WTC7 are the only steel frames buildings to ever collapse due to fire" and that the towers came down in "free fall speed". when they come out with this claim they count how long it takes from the rubble which has been blasted from the top of the building to reach the ground which is obviously at free fall speed as there is nothing underneath it to stop it! They also claim the towers collapsed symmetrically when they were clearly leaning into the part of the building that the plane crashed into, particularly evident in the south tower!Still find the Pentagon explanation to be rather sketchy and the fact there is no clear cctv footage of a plane hitting the building to be highly suspicious. There doesn't have to have been thousands of people in on this to help it happen, the chain of command and the orders that were in place meant that many people could have contributed to the events just by following protocol. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 About 6/10 Americans believe in God though. More than that probably.Not everyone who questions the official narrative is a crack pot though, although the "Truthers" are a rather dishonest bunch at times and come out with ridiculous conclusions such as "The twin towers and WTC7 are the only steel frames buildings to ever collapse due to fire" and that the towers came down in "free fall speed". when they come out with this claim they count how long it takes from the rubble which has been blasted from the top of the building to reach the ground which is obviously at free fall speed as there is nothing underneath it to stop it! They also claim the towers collapsed symmetrically when they were clearly leaning into the part of the building that the plane crashed into, particularly evident in the south tower!Still find the Pentagon explanation to be rather sketchy and the fact there is no clear cctv footage of a plane hitting the building to be highly suspicious. There doesn't have to have been thousands of people in on this to help it happen, the chain of command and the orders that were in place meant that many people could have contributed to the events just by following protocol. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillonearth Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 52 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said: . The key detail that gets left out of the "9/11 truth" youtube clips on the Pentagon thing is that lots of witnesses saw the plane from their vehicles on a nearby highway, so it really isn't in question that a plane hit the building. I've mentioned this one on here before - a mate of mine was working in the embassy in Washington at the time, and one of his workmates saw it happen on their way into work that morning. The Pentagon's a few hundred yards from I-95, and it was rush hour at the time. There were hundreds, if not thousands of witnesses whose testimony is conveniently ignored by Youtube truthers who want to believe it was hit by a missile or whatever based on the sole evidence that the timelapse security cam footage they've seen doesn't meet their standards of proof. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipperyP Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) 19 minutes ago, throbber said: More than that probably. Not everyone who questions the official narrative is a crack pot though, although the "Truthers" are a rather dishonest bunch at times and come out with ridiculous conclusions such as "The twin towers and WTC7 are the only steel frames buildings to ever collapse due to fire" and that the towers came down in "free fall speed". when they come out with this claim they count how long it takes from the rubble which has been blasted from the top of the building to reach the ground which is obviously at free fall speed as there is nothing underneath it to stop it! They also claim the towers collapsed symmetrically when they were clearly leaning into the part of the building that the plane crashed into, particularly evident in the south tower! Still find the Pentagon explanation to be rather sketchy and the fact there is no clear cctv footage of a plane hitting the building to be highly suspicious. There doesn't have to have been thousands of people in on this to help it happen, the chain of command and the orders that were in place meant that many people could have contributed to the events just by following protocol. Thobs, I'm with you on the pentagon, but I still think,with this being the biggest/most information based building in the US (what we know of), this and only this is the reason they don't give more info. Why give public viewings? ETA. I've been there, and got few photos, but really could have got into a lot of shit if caught. Edited September 21, 2016 by SlipperyP 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Skidmarks Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 1 hour ago, throbber said: About 6/10 Americans don't believe the official story though. Americans are stupid though. 9/11 people know that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shandon Par Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 1 hour ago, throbber said: Still find the Pentagon explanation to be rather sketchy and the fact there is no clear cctv footage of a plane hitting the building to be highly suspicious. How clear do you expect the footage of a plane travelling past a CCTV camera (running at about 3 frames per second) at around 100 metres a second to be? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim O'Grady Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 1 minute ago, Shandon Par said: How clear do you expect the footage of a plane travelling past a CCTV camera (running at about 3 frames per second) at around 100 metres a second to be? ^^^QQ thread for this pish Grimbo -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shandon Par Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 2 minutes ago, Grim O'Grady said: ^^^QQ thread for this pish Grimbo Those of us raised on finding material scrunched up in bushes or watching soft focus Shannon Tweed films on Channel 5 on Friday nights are more understanding of fuzzy footage than these young pups accustomed to HD everything. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightswoodBear Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 1 minute ago, Shandon Par said: Those of us raised on finding material scrunched up in bushes or watching soft focus Shannon Tweed films on Channel 5 on Friday nights are more understanding of fuzzy footage than these young pups accustomed to HD everything. *Looks off into the middle distance, crosses legs* 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 How clear do you expect the footage of a plane travelling past a CCTV camera (running at about 3 frames per second) at around 100 metres a second to be? Clear enough to make out a Boeing 757. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipperyP Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 2 minutes ago, throbber said: Clear enough to make out a Boeing 757. There was many eye witnesses which each person seen a plane. Like a BIG f**k off plane. Sure some muther fucker gona tel the truff. Shit I 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 There was many eye witnesses which each person seen a plane. Like a BIG f**k off plane. Sure some muther fucker gona tel the truff. Shit I It didn't say American Airlines on the side though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 6 minutes ago, throbber said: Clear enough to make out a Boeing 757. Travelling at 500+ mph across the field of view in less than half a second? If there was a clear image there would be room for a conspiracy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipperyP Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 2 minutes ago, throbber said: It didn't say American Airlines on the side though. NoNo man Im too shite scared to fuckin read. Thersea plane hitting the building.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shandon Par Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 Just now, welshbairn said: Travelling at 500+ mph across the field of view in less than half a second? If there was a clear image there would be room for a conspiracy. This kind of stuff sums up the conspiracies. You make the point of a simple, irrefutable fact. Not something that's open to debate or interpretation and conspiracy theorists say "ah, but..". It's bizarre. Affirmation through repetition seems to be a new alternative to facts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipperyP Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 7 minutes ago, Shandon Par said: This kind of stuff sums up the conspiracies. You make the point of a simple, irrefutable fact. Not something that's open to debate or interpretation and conspiracy theorists say "ah, but..". It's bizarre. Affirmation through repetition seems to be a new alternative to facts. Ma'Lord We also have Judaism, there is many more. I heard they have books about it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 11 minutes ago, Shandon Par said: This kind of stuff sums up the conspiracies. You make the point of a simple, irrefutable fact. Not something that's open to debate or interpretation and conspiracy theorists say "ah, but..". It's bizarre. Affirmation through repetition seems to be a new alternative to facts. It's working grand for Trump. Over 60% of his fans believe Obama is a Muslim and not born in America. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.