FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Conspiracists....
Conspiracists....
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Is this thread a conspiracy to trick me to identify myself?...  No we all know you are a fake. 
True story    "
Fuck me I can't be blamed for your cold then can I?.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Is this thread a conspiracy to trick me to identify myself?... No we all know you are a fake.
True story
Fuck me I can't be blamed for your cold then can I?..
Cold? You cheeky twat!!! "
Lolol. I'd call it a cold but women exaggerate these things.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As governments have been using propaganda for decades, it is reasonable to assume that we, the public, only get an approved and managed version of reality. As such, anyone who may tell the truth may thus be viewed suspiciously as a conspiracist, even though sane and honest. Obviously it is likely that many will also be cranks and attention seekers, so I take all claims individually and assess each on its own merits. It is also true that governments put out conspiracy stories, that are made up, to discredit the rest and stop the public having faith in any of them. Take everything with a sceptics viewpoint, based on evidence and likelihood. Strange things do happen in real life, but often the most rational explanation is likely to be true. A good question to ponder is where does the money have leverage. Follow the money and youre likely to see who has the most power and desire to distort the truth from being known or understood. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"WW3 is coming and a financial crash that will effect the whole world. Lots of people are going to lose everything. "
What, you dont think its started already? And what are lots of people going to loose? Stuff? Or their lives?
The sad thing about conspiracies is that most are not planned but come about when someone cocks things up and then hasn't got the bottle to say they've screwed up... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't believe that the Americans landed on the moon in 1969.
"
Why not?
To make such a massive claim will need some stunning proof on your side.
That evidence must counter all the actuall proof they did land
I will start with a few,you tell me your actual event.
Photos from different space agencies showing tracks and objects left on the moon.
The moon rock,tested by various unrelated sources.
All the missions were tracked by numerous countries including their biggest enemy ussr.
The rocket was seen leaving earth by thousands live.
The video footage and countless photos that coul not have done on cgi in the 60's and 70's
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I've always seen a trend in conspiracists,that if they believe one they believe them all.
That says more about the persons mental state than the story they believe.
Most seem very good at ignoring facts which go against their crazy stories. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't believe that the Americans landed on the moon in 1969.
Why not?
"
Because we haven't stepped foot on the moon since 1969.
To put it in perspective: there is more technological power in your iPhone today than the whole of NASA's Houston Command Centre in 1969 and they managed to get a guy on the moon then and we cannot do it now?!? Why.
Doesn't that make you wonder that maybe we cannot land on the moon and it was just a propaganda lie at the time to look like the Americans were more advanced than the Soviet Union, who had managed to sent a guy into space a few years before.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *RYBBWCouple
over a year ago
Leeds. |
"I don't believe that the Americans landed on the moon in 1969.
Why not?
Because we haven't stepped foot on the moon since 1969.
To put it in perspective: there is more technological power in your iPhone today than the whole of NASA's Houston Command Centre in 1969 and they managed to get a guy on the moon then and we cannot do it now?!? Why.
Doesn't that make you wonder that maybe we cannot land on the moon and it was just a propaganda lie at the time to look like the Americans were more advanced than the Soviet Union, who had managed to sent a guy into space a few years before.
"
During the moon landings mirrors were left behind angled toward Earth. Lasers are aimed at these mirrors and the returned beam timed. Using this scientists have calculated that the moons orbital distance is increasing at a rate of two meters a year. Not a significant amount, but eventually it will have a catastrophic effect on the tides. You can guess the rest. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *RYBBWCouple
over a year ago
Leeds. |
"I don't believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. "
He didn't. JFK was shot from the front. Kennedy's head snaps backwards with the impact of the fatal bullet. That's the law of physics. Oswald was behind the motorcade in the book repository. Had Oswald shot Kennedy his head would have been forced forward by the impact.
Watch the Zapruger film on youtube. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emmefatale OP Woman
over a year ago
dirtybigbadsgirlville |
"Diana was killed by accident in a French tunnel after a colission with a car that was never traced
What a crock of shit"
Now that's the one that always gets me, and to be honest, I don't know what to believe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I believe that for every drop of rain that falls,someone gets wet.  "
that cant be true...I'm in the house and its raining and I'm bone dry, sweaty bawsacs tho..am roasting |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *RYBBWCouple
over a year ago
Leeds. |
"the american government planned 9/11"
Correct. The planes which hit the towers were not passenger airliners. They were military drones (unpiloted remote control planes) with no windows or markings. Also, there was a pod under each plane which was fired into both towers moments before impact. WTC 7 collapsed even though no plane hit it. The plane which was supposed to hit it came down elsewhere (no bodies found in the wreckage). Watch the video's on youtube. All three WTC collapses were controled explosions just like those used to bring down blocks of flats.
As for the pentagon. A Boeng 736 is 125 feet wide (approx). The hole in the building is only 65 feet wide. You do the maths. Also, no bodies or plain wreckage was found. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't believe that the Americans landed on the moon in 1969.
Why not?
Because we haven't stepped foot on the moon since 1969.
To put it in perspective: there is more technological power in your iPhone today than the whole of NASA's Houston Command Centre in 1969 and they managed to get a guy on the moon then and we cannot do it now?!? Why.
Doesn't that make you wonder that maybe we cannot land on the moon and it was just a propaganda lie at the time to look like the Americans were more advanced than the Soviet Union, who had managed to sent a guy into space a few years before.
"
Wonderful argument, by the same token you must also not believe in the USA exploding 2 nukes over japan in 1945 because there is more power in your iPhone than in all the world in 1945 and you couldn't do that either... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm actually thinking theres a move to get into the middle east etc, basically because theyve probably predicted that the west will be a very harsh environment to live in, an ice-age,floods...
so probably right now...they are "invading" these less developed countries(with tonnes of raw materials), its not for human rights issues etc, its just the right time to take control
*if its an ice-age, the west might be a great home to a super cooled gigantic quantum supercomputer neural net |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK.
He didn't. JFK was shot from the front. Kennedy's head snaps backwards with the impact of the fatal bullet. That's the law of physics. Oswald was behind the motorcade in the book repository. Had Oswald shot Kennedy his head would have been forced forward by the impact.
Watch the Zapruger film on youtube."
Dont know about Oswald's role in the Kennedy killing. But I do know that your wrong about the laws of physics...
The shot entered his back and just like when your involved in a rear end shunt the body moves forward throwing the head back relative to the body (its how you get whiplash injuries). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I believe that for every drop of rain that falls,someone gets wet.
that cant be true...I'm in the house and its raining and I'm bone dry, sweaty bawsacs tho..am roasting"
so your not getting wet then but the poor blokes repairing the gas pipe leaking down the road are getting a bloody soaking though!. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *RYBBWCouple
over a year ago
Leeds. |
"I don't believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK.
He didn't. JFK was shot from the front. Kennedy's head snaps backwards with the impact of the fatal bullet. That's the law of physics. Oswald was behind the motorcade in the book repository. Had Oswald shot Kennedy his head would have been forced forward by the impact.
Watch the Zapruger film on youtube.Dont know about Oswald's role in the Kennedy killing. But I do know that your wrong about the laws of physics...
The shot entered his back and just like when your involved in a rear end shunt the body moves forward throwing the head back relative to the body (its how you get whiplash injuries). "
Indeed, kennedy was hit from the rear. A shot entered his back, passed through him and hit the passenger sat directly in front of him. This caused the reaction you stated although it did not kill Kennedy. But......
Two further shots were fired. Both, and this was backed by eyewitnesses at the time (who all coincidently died in rapid succession), were fired from the "grassy knoll". When those shots were fired Kennedy was sitting back in his seat leaning toward his wife who was to his left. His head was forced back by the impact of those bullets and both brain and skull matter was blown out covering the trunk of the car.
The available film has been doctored as eyewitnesses clearly stated the car Kennedy was travelling in ground to a halt after the first shot. However, this is not shown on the film. There are some great official video's on youtube by film experts who highlight the anomalies in the Zapruger footage.
It's all good banter as you'd hope to find when discussing conspiracy theories.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I believe lol..just a coupe that have got me muddled in the past and still some to this day..JFK, Kurt Cobain, 9/11, Princess Di, the Bilderberg group and the 1929 Wall Street crash ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Indeed, kennedy was hit from the rear. A shot entered his back, passed through him and hit the passenger sat directly in front of him. This caused the reaction you stated although it did not kill Kennedy. But......
Two further shots were fired. Both, and this was backed by eyewitnesses at the time (who all coincidently died in rapid succession), were fired from the "grassy knoll". When those shots were fired Kennedy was sitting back in his seat leaning toward his wife who was to his left. His head was forced back by the impact of those bullets and both brain and skull matter was blown out covering the trunk of the car.
The available film has been doctored as eyewitnesses clearly stated the car Kennedy was travelling in ground to a halt after the first shot. However, this is not shown on the film. There are some great official video's on youtube by film experts who highlight the anomalies in the Zapruger footage.
It's all good banter as you'd hope to find when discussing conspiracy theories.
"
Indeed! As I said I dont know Oswald's (or for that matter anyone else) part in the Kennedy assassination. I am an ex military marksman (not sniper) same as Oswald, and the best I could would be a well aimed double tap (2 shots) with a semi-automatic rifle. I would never have been able to fire 3 well aimed rounds with a bolt action rifle in the 6 seconds that covered the 3 shots. However it is not beyond bounds of possibility after all the distance of the shots was less than 100 mtrs and at that range I would expect any trained marksman to have 100% accuracy.
On balance I believe that there was a second gunman and the cover-up (including the sealing of all records) suggests that there was a high level criminal conspiracy. But there is no evidence to back this up, and the continual trotting out of obviously wrong "evidence" rather than facts only further muddies the water. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the american government planned 9/11
Correct. The planes which hit the towers were not passenger airliners. They were military drones (unpiloted remote control planes) with no windows or markings. Also, there was a pod under each plane which was fired into both towers moments before impact. WTC 7 collapsed even though no plane hit it. The plane which was supposed to hit it came down elsewhere (no bodies found in the wreckage). Watch the video's on youtube. All three WTC collapses were controled explosions just like those used to bring down blocks of flats.
As for the pentagon. A Boeng 736 is 125 feet wide (approx). The hole in the building is only 65 feet wide. You do the maths. Also, no bodies or plain wreckage was found."
Hahaha
How can you be rational with someone who can believe that bull shit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the american government planned 9/11
Correct. The planes which hit the towers were not passenger airliners. They were military drones (unpiloted remote control planes) with no windows or markings. Also, there was a pod under each plane which was fired into both towers moments before impact. WTC 7 collapsed even though no plane hit it. The plane which was supposed to hit it came down elsewhere (no bodies found in the wreckage). Watch the video's on youtube. All three WTC collapses were controled explosions just like those used to bring down blocks of flats.
As for the pentagon. A Boeng 736 is 125 feet wide (approx). The hole in the building is only 65 feet wide. You do the maths. Also, no bodies or plain wreckage was found."
Now that really did make LOL !!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the american government planned 9/11
Correct. The planes which hit the towers were not passenger airliners. They were military drones (unpiloted remote control planes) with no windows or markings. Also, there was a pod under each plane which was fired into both towers moments before impact. WTC 7 collapsed even though no plane hit it. The plane which was supposed to hit it came down elsewhere (no bodies found in the wreckage). Watch the video's on youtube. All three WTC collapses were controled explosions just like those used to bring down blocks of flats.
As for the pentagon. A Boeng 736 is 125 feet wide (approx). The hole in the building is only 65 feet wide. You do the maths. Also, no bodies or plain wreckage was found.
Hahaha
How can you be rational with someone who can believe that bull shit."
Funnily enough I do believe there was a U S government conspiracy attached to 9/11. Just not any of the popular ones.
I do not believe that a group of frightened panicking passengers on flight 93 forced their way through a locked security door on to the flight deck that was being held by armed and determined fanatical religious martyrs!
It is my belief that the US military shot that plane out of the sky and that a clever PR man came up with a plan to change history and instead of having another plane load of victims killed by their own government, in order to save the White House, to make them into the "heroes who fraught back".
It worked too! LoL! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the american government planned 9/11
Correct. The planes which hit the towers were not passenger airliners. They were military drones (unpiloted remote control planes) with no windows or markings. Also, there was a pod under each plane which was fired into both towers moments before impact. WTC 7 collapsed even though no plane hit it. The plane which was supposed to hit it came down elsewhere (no bodies found in the wreckage). Watch the video's on youtube. All three WTC collapses were controled explosions just like those used to bring down blocks of flats.
As for the pentagon. A Boeng 736 is 125 feet wide (approx). The hole in the building is only 65 feet wide. You do the maths. Also, no bodies or plain wreckage was found."
Been in a lot of planes (military and civilian) but never in one 125 feet wide! In fact Ill pay anyone who can show me a plane that an aircraft carrier can fit in good money! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the american government planned 9/11
Correct. The planes which hit the towers were not passenger airliners. They were military drones (unpiloted remote control planes) with no windows or markings. Also, there was a pod under each plane which was fired into both towers moments before impact. WTC 7 collapsed even though no plane hit it. The plane which was supposed to hit it came down elsewhere (no bodies found in the wreckage). Watch the video's on youtube. All three WTC collapses were controled explosions just like those used to bring down blocks of flats.
As for the pentagon. A Boeng 736 is 125 feet wide (approx). The hole in the building is only 65 feet wide. You do the maths. Also, no bodies or plain wreckage was found."
Un piloted remote control planes ?
So every year fake mourners turn out to grieve fake dead friends and relatives. Surely someone would have broke cover by now. Their story would be worth millions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the american government planned 9/11
Correct. The planes which hit the towers were not passenger airliners. They were military drones (unpiloted remote control planes) with no windows or markings. Also, there was a pod under each plane which was fired into both towers moments before impact. WTC 7 collapsed even though no plane hit it. The plane which was supposed to hit it came down elsewhere (no bodies found in the wreckage). Watch the video's on youtube. All three WTC collapses were controled explosions just like those used to bring down blocks of flats.
As for the pentagon. A Boeng 736 is 125 feet wide (approx). The hole in the building is only 65 feet wide. You do the maths. Also, no bodies or plain wreckage was found.
Un piloted remote control planes ?
So every year fake mourners turn out to grieve fake dead friends and relatives. Surely someone would have broke cover by now. Their story would be worth millions. "
men in black flashy pen thingymbob |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the american government planned 9/11
Correct. The planes which hit the towers were not passenger airliners. They were military drones (unpiloted remote control planes) with no windows or markings. Also, there was a pod under each plane which was fired into both towers moments before impact. WTC 7 collapsed even though no plane hit it. The plane which was supposed to hit it came down elsewhere (no bodies found in the wreckage). Watch the video's on youtube. All three WTC collapses were controled explosions just like those used to bring down blocks of flats.
As for the pentagon. A Boeng 736 is 125 feet wide (approx). The hole in the building is only 65 feet wide. You do the maths. Also, no bodies or plain wreckage was found.
Un piloted remote control planes ?
So every year fake mourners turn out to grieve fake dead friends and relatives. Surely someone would have broke cover by now. Their story would be worth millions. "
I was just thinking that.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't believe that the Americans landed on the moon in 1969.
Why not?
Because we haven't stepped foot on the moon since 1969.
"
I had sex with F###### R######s in 1984 but I haven't since, don't you dare tell me it never happened though. I was there and it was nice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *igSuki81Man
over a year ago
Retirement Village |
"the american government planned 9/11
Correct. The planes which hit the towers were not passenger airliners. They were military drones (unpiloted remote control planes) with no windows or markings. Also, there was a pod under each plane which was fired into both towers moments before impact. WTC 7 collapsed even though no plane hit it. The plane which was supposed to hit it came down elsewhere (no bodies found in the wreckage). Watch the video's on youtube. All three WTC collapses were controled explosions just like those used to bring down blocks of flats.
As for the pentagon. A Boeng 736 is 125 feet wide (approx). The hole in the building is only 65 feet wide. You do the maths. Also, no bodies or plain wreckage was found.
Been in a lot of planes (military and civilian) but never in one 125 feet wide! In fact Ill pay anyone who can show me a plane that an aircraft carrier can fit in good money!"
The poster may be referring to the wing span at 125ft not the fuselage
As for the theory/conspiracy, there are a lot of unexplained events of that day and appears to be a lot of cover ups.
Personally i do not believe it was done as has been portrayed and the american government have a lot to answer but refuse to.
The simple facts are 3000+ died on that day and an uncounted figure since then all in the name of 'fighting terror' & 'freedom' or perhaps it was in the name of 'oil' & 'money'  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the american government planned 9/11
Correct. The planes which hit the towers were not passenger airliners. They were military drones (unpiloted remote control planes) with no windows or markings. Also, there was a pod under each plane which was fired into both towers moments before impact. WTC 7 collapsed even though no plane hit it. The plane which was supposed to hit it came down elsewhere (no bodies found in the wreckage). Watch the video's on youtube. All three WTC collapses were controled explosions just like those used to bring down blocks of flats.
As for the pentagon. A Boeng 736 is 125 feet wide (approx). The hole in the building is only 65 feet wide. You do the maths. Also, no bodies or plain wreckage was found."
purleease...
rocket pods..
have you actually looked at any of the footage of the planes before they hit..?
do you know anything about the effects of heat on steel..?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Passenger jet fuel burns at 2000 degree's, the superstructure of the twin towers was built to withstand up to 3000 degree's.
There is footage of small explosions running down the building ( in order to collapse it ) whether they are real or not is another story.
As for unmanned drones and rocket pods i think the poster stating that has been watching too many Bond films lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the american government planned 9/11
Correct. The planes which hit the towers were not passenger airliners. They were military drones (unpiloted remote control planes) with no windows or markings. Also, there was a pod under each plane which was fired into both towers moments before impact. WTC 7 collapsed even though no plane hit it. The plane which was supposed to hit it came down elsewhere (no bodies found in the wreckage). Watch the video's on youtube. All three WTC collapses were controled explosions just like those used to bring down blocks of flats.
As for the pentagon. A Boeng 736 is 125 feet wide (approx). The hole in the building is only 65 feet wide. You do the maths. Also, no bodies or plain wreckage was found.
Been in a lot of planes (military and civilian) but never in one 125 feet wide! In fact Ill pay anyone who can show me a plane that an aircraft carrier can fit in good money!
The poster may be referring to the wing span at 125ft not the fuselage
"
Really
Would never have thought of that because in all the plane crash footage I have seen the engines and wings get ripped off and the body of the plane ploughs on doing the damage...
Maybe I got the original post about 65ft holes wrong...
Or maybe the OP was trying to be clever and failing.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Passenger jet fuel burns at 2000 degree's, the superstructure of the twin towers was built to withstand up to 3000 degree's.
There is footage of small explosions running down the building ( in order to collapse it ) whether they are real or not is another story.
As for unmanned drones and rocket pods i think the poster stating that has been watching too many Bond films lol "
Those little explosions are as one level collapses into the level below causing are to expell from the building thus giving the impressing of little explosions.
Don't you think someone might have noticed someone putting explosives all over the building they worked in ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Passenger jet fuel burns at 2000 degree's, the superstructure of the twin towers was built to withstand up to 3000 degree's.
There is footage of small explosions running down the building ( in order to collapse it ) whether they are real or not is another story.
As for unmanned drones and rocket pods i think the poster stating that has been watching too many Bond films lol
Those little explosions are as one level collapses into the level below causing are to expell from the building thus giving the impressing of little explosions.
Don't you think someone might have noticed someone putting explosives all over the building they worked in ? "
The explosions or small pops happen before the building collapses, i didnt say i believed it, just another part of the conspiracy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Passenger jet fuel burns at 2000 degree's, the superstructure of the twin towers was built to withstand up to 3000 degree's.
There is footage of small explosions running down the building ( in order to collapse it ) whether they are real or not is another story.
As for unmanned drones and rocket pods i think the poster stating that has been watching too many Bond films lol
Those little explosions are as one level collapses into the level below causing are to expell from the building thus giving the impressing of little explosions.
Don't you think someone might have noticed someone putting explosives all over the building they worked in ?
The explosions or small pops happen before the building collapses, i didnt say i believed it, just another part of the conspiracy. "
Another part of the conspiracy that is easily explained. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *igSuki81Man
over a year ago
Retirement Village |
"Passenger jet fuel burns at 2000 degree's, the superstructure of the twin towers was built to withstand up to 3000 degree's.
There is footage of small explosions running down the building ( in order to collapse it ) whether they are real or not is another story.
As for unmanned drones and rocket pods i think the poster stating that has been watching too many Bond films lol
Those little explosions are as one level collapses into the level below causing are to expell from the building thus giving the impressing of little explosions.
Don't you think someone might have noticed someone putting explosives all over the building they worked in ?
The explosions or small pops happen before the building collapses, i didnt say i believed it, just another part of the conspiracy.
Another part of the conspiracy that is easily explained. "
Can anyone explain why structural steel with a very high melting point melted at lower temperatures?
Or why prior to and after this event no structural skyscraper has ever fell to the ground because of a fire
Or why a building a fair distance away collapsed when nothing hit it?
Or how a building collapsed all the way to the floor by this collapse theory but no steel pylons were sticking up?
& as for air pockets causing the explosions when the floors collapsed, the puffs are seen several storeys below and for air to expand so quickly that it pops the windows you would need a sealed building and no where for the air to escape, hence the weakest point (windows) would go pop.
Sorry i'm being a bit to technical |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *igSuki81Man
over a year ago
Retirement Village |
"the american government planned 9/11
Correct. The planes which hit the towers were not passenger airliners. They were military drones (unpiloted remote control planes) with no windows or markings. Also, there was a pod under each plane which was fired into both towers moments before impact. WTC 7 collapsed even though no plane hit it. The plane which was supposed to hit it came down elsewhere (no bodies found in the wreckage). Watch the video's on youtube. All three WTC collapses were controled explosions just like those used to bring down blocks of flats.
As for the pentagon. A Boeng 736 is 125 feet wide (approx). The hole in the building is only 65 feet wide. You do the maths. Also, no bodies or plain wreckage was found.
Been in a lot of planes (military and civilian) but never in one 125 feet wide! In fact Ill pay anyone who can show me a plane that an aircraft carrier can fit in good money!
The poster may be referring to the wing span at 125ft not the fuselage
Really
Would never have thought of that because in all the plane crash footage I have seen the engines and wings get ripped off and the body of the plane ploughs on doing the damage...
Maybe I got the original post about 65ft holes wrong...
Or maybe the OP was trying to be clever and failing.
"
Not sure what footage you have seen but i'd love to know
Maybe the OP was trying to be clever but i was giving facts. As for the hole in the wall at the pentagon & the explanation that the plane disintegrated on impact, have a look at all your footage again and see if you can find where an engine made from titanium and steel of aero grade material has disintegrated on impact |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Its also ironic that a vast majority of the US air defence were on exercise " vigilant guardian " which was to simulate an attack on the US, which left very very few fighters able to respond ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Passenger jet fuel burns at 2000 degree's, the superstructure of the twin towers was built to withstand up to 3000 degree's.
There is footage of small explosions running down the building ( in order to collapse it ) whether they are real or not is another story.
As for unmanned drones and rocket pods i think the poster stating that has been watching too many Bond films lol
Those little explosions are as one level collapses into the level below causing are to expell from the building thus giving the impressing of little explosions.
Don't you think someone might have noticed someone putting explosives all over the building they worked in ?
The explosions or small pops happen before the building collapses, i didnt say i believed it, just another part of the conspiracy.
Another part of the conspiracy that is easily explained.
Can anyone explain why structural steel with a very high melting point melted at lower temperatures?
Or why prior to and after this event no structural skyscraper has ever fell to the ground because of a fire
Or why a building a fair distance away collapsed when nothing hit it?
Or how a building collapsed all the way to the floor by this collapse theory but no steel pylons were sticking up?
& as for air pockets causing the explosions when the floors collapsed, the puffs are seen several storeys below and for air to expand so quickly that it pops the windows you would need a sealed building and no where for the air to escape, hence the weakest point (windows) would go pop.
Sorry i'm being a bit to technical "
Why do the tin foil hat people always try to presume that they are way too clever and technical for us normal sheeple ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don't class myself as a conspiracist despite often reading up on the latest. Some conspiracies are truths that will never be admitted, some are events that will never be explained and some are so far fetched and hilarious that you can't believe anyone buys into it.
But a lot of it is trolls seeing how many sheep will fall for it. Just look at the hysteria in the States last year because a notorious minister claimed the end of the world was about to happen (again).
Then again, if you ever want to hide something and a bunch of people uncover what's going on, call it a conspiracy and it's instantly discredited.
Look at Jesse Ventura (ex governor of Minnesota) challenging the truth about 9/11. They gave him a telly show about conspiracies and he soon shut up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Its also ironic that a vast majority of the US air defence were on exercise " vigilant guardian " which was to simulate an attack on the US, which left very very few fighters able to respond ! "
.
But apparently able to respond to the one that crashed into the pentagon according to another theory. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"Why do the tin foil hat people always try to presume that they are way too clever and technical for us normal sheeple ? "
'cos ma tin foil hat conducts 'lectrical impulses and can make extra thinking type connections what you non-foilers don't got. Innit.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Its also ironic that a vast majority of the US air defence were on exercise " vigilant guardian " which was to simulate an attack on the US, which left very very few fighters able to respond ! .
But apparently able to respond to the one that crashed into the pentagon according to another theory. "
Yeh lol, TBH no one will ever know the truth |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
unprotected steel starts to lose its integrity at 550-600 c temp, it will start to expand, buckle and lose its strength adding strain on other parts of the structure..
treated steel is more resilient depending on the type and level of protection applied..
building regs on both sides of the pond don't tend to factor in the impact of a jet plane which as was witnessed had a catastrophic effect on the buildings..
once the integrity was lost, gravity did the rest..
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Its also ironic that a vast majority of the US air defence were on exercise " vigilant guardian " which was to simulate an attack on the US, which left very very few fighters able to respond ! .
But apparently able to respond to the one that crashed into the pentagon according to another theory.
Yeh lol, TBH no one will ever know the truth "
.
Exactly, that is why I like to take my news and information from a wide variety of sources and try to make a balanced view instead of reading stories that have been put on the Internet by someone who hasn't left their left their bedroom in their years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Its also ironic that a vast majority of the US air defence were on exercise " vigilant guardian " which was to simulate an attack on the US, which left very very few fighters able to respond ! .
But apparently able to respond to the one that crashed into the pentagon according to another theory.
Yeh lol, TBH no one will ever know the truth .
Exactly, that is why I like to take my news and information from a wide variety of sources and try to make a balanced view instead of reading stories that have been put on the Internet by someone who hasn't left their left their bedroom in their years. "
Yeh agreed, im still in two minds over who was responsible tbh, but i dont think the real truth will ever come out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Passenger jet fuel burns at 2000 degree's, the superstructure of the twin towers was built to withstand up to 3000 degree's.
There is footage of small explosions running down the building ( in order to collapse it ) whether they are real or not is another story.
As for unmanned drones and rocket pods i think the poster stating that has been watching too many Bond films lol
Those little explosions are as one level collapses into the level below causing are to expell from the building thus giving the impressing of little explosions.
Don't you think someone might have noticed someone putting explosives all over the building they worked in ?
The explosions or small pops happen before the building collapses, i didnt say i believed it, just another part of the conspiracy.
Another part of the conspiracy that is easily explained.
Can anyone explain why structural steel with a very high melting point melted at lower temperatures?
Or why prior to and after this event no structural skyscraper has ever fell to the ground because of a fire
Or why a building a fair distance away collapsed when nothing hit it?
Or how a building collapsed all the way to the floor by this collapse theory but no steel pylons were sticking up?
& as for air pockets causing the explosions when the floors collapsed, the puffs are seen several storeys below and for air to expand so quickly that it pops the windows you would need a sealed building and no where for the air to escape, hence the weakest point (windows) would go pop.
Sorry i'm being a bit to technical "
OK I'll bite.
In order: Firstly it is a misunderstanding of the properties of any metal to think it has to melt to fail. It only needs to heat to the point where it is malleable for structural failure to occur.
Secondly it was not the fire that caused the building to collapse floor by floor, it was the weight of the floors above that did that.
Thirdly you do not have to hit a building to make it collapse. You can undermine its foundations or just give it a good shake (as seen in earthquakes). The World Trade Centre complex was a warren of underground tunnels and carparks linking all the buildings, it is not surprising that when the 2 largest building fell the resulting shock-wave damaged surrounding buildings.
Fourthly there was steel sticking out of the debris. The fact that you fail to appreciate scale of destruction and exactly how large the debris field was is obvious from your post.
Finally again you show that you have very little grasp of how violent or fast the shock wave caused by gasses equalizing pressure is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *RYBBWCouple
over a year ago
Leeds. |
"the american government planned 9/11
Correct. The planes which hit the towers were not passenger airliners. They were military drones (unpiloted remote control planes) with no windows or markings. Also, there was a pod under each plane which was fired into both towers moments before impact. WTC 7 collapsed even though no plane hit it. The plane which was supposed to hit it came down elsewhere (no bodies found in the wreckage). Watch the video's on youtube. All three WTC collapses were controled explosions just like those used to bring down blocks of flats.
As for the pentagon. A Boeng 736 is 125 feet wide (approx). The hole in the building is only 65 feet wide. You do the maths. Also, no bodies or plain wreckage was found.
Hahaha
How can you be rational with someone who can believe that bull shit."
So the CNN footage is all wrong then ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *RYBBWCouple
over a year ago
Leeds. |
"the american government planned 9/11
Correct. The planes which hit the towers were not passenger airliners. They were military drones (unpiloted remote control planes) with no windows or markings. Also, there was a pod under each plane which was fired into both towers moments before impact. WTC 7 collapsed even though no plane hit it. The plane which was supposed to hit it came down elsewhere (no bodies found in the wreckage). Watch the video's on youtube. All three WTC collapses were controled explosions just like those used to bring down blocks of flats.
As for the pentagon. A Boeng 736 is 125 feet wide (approx). The hole in the building is only 65 feet wide. You do the maths. Also, no bodies or plain wreckage was found.
purleease...
rocket pods..
have you actually looked at any of the footage of the planes before they hit..?
do you know anything about the effects of heat on steel..?
"
Seen plenty of footage. The pods are clearly visible beneath the planes.
Aviation fuel does not burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *RYBBWCouple
over a year ago
Leeds. |
"the american government planned 9/11
Correct. The planes which hit the towers were not passenger airliners. They were military drones (unpiloted remote control planes) with no windows or markings. Also, there was a pod under each plane which was fired into both towers moments before impact. WTC 7 collapsed even though no plane hit it. The plane which was supposed to hit it came down elsewhere (no bodies found in the wreckage). Watch the video's on youtube. All three WTC collapses were controled explosions just like those used to bring down blocks of flats.
As for the pentagon. A Boeng 736 is 125 feet wide (approx). The hole in the building is only 65 feet wide. You do the maths. Also, no bodies or plain wreckage was found.
Been in a lot of planes (military and civilian) but never in one 125 feet wide! In fact Ill pay anyone who can show me a plane that an aircraft carrier can fit in good money!
The poster may be referring to the wing span at 125ft not the fuselage
Really
Would never have thought of that because in all the plane crash footage I have seen the engines and wings get ripped off and the body of the plane ploughs on doing the damage...
Maybe I got the original post about 65ft holes wrong...
Or maybe the OP was trying to be clever and failing.
"
Clever and failing ? And you know me do you ?
Plenty of footage and expert opinions form scientists, air pilots, firemen etc readily available. Or are they just trying to be clever and failing ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the american government planned 9/11
Correct. The planes which hit the towers were not passenger airliners. They were military drones (unpiloted remote control planes) with no windows or markings. Also, there was a pod under each plane which was fired into both towers moments before impact. WTC 7 collapsed even though no plane hit it. The plane which was supposed to hit it came down elsewhere (no bodies found in the wreckage). Watch the video's on youtube. All three WTC collapses were controled explosions just like those used to bring down blocks of flats.
As for the pentagon. A Boeng 736 is 125 feet wide (approx). The hole in the building is only 65 feet wide. You do the maths. Also, no bodies or plain wreckage was found.
purleease...
rocket pods..
have you actually looked at any of the footage of the planes before they hit..?
do you know anything about the effects of heat on steel..?
Seen plenty of footage. The pods are clearly visible beneath the planes.
Aviation fuel does not burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel."
The so called pods you refer to are called wing fairing and in the right light can look pronounced etc.
There is no footage from CNN of " pods " being fired into the building moments before and i have seen no such evidence whatsoever and have watched a lot of footage.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"9/11 happened thousands died.....I'm sorry but there will be conspiracy bollocks spouted about it...I feel sorry for the families of the dead that have to listen to such bollocks about it...."
I agree but to play devils advocate if you were one of the families would you not want to know the real truth ?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *igSuki81Man
over a year ago
Retirement Village |
"
... Sorry i'm being a bit to technical
Why do the tin foil hat people always try to presume that they are way too clever and technical for us normal sheeple ? "
i dont know you so presume nothing & i was apologising for me being a bit too geeky
As for tin foil hat, i don't wear one, i question what is put in front of me as the 'truth' the same way i questioned the claim for WMD's in iraq which we all know saddam had and hid them in a camel, which ran off during the war so we couldn't find it just as we couldn't find any oil there too
It's not my fault blame my school history teacher. She taught me when looking at events it's always good to get a complete view rather then believe the first thing put in front of you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"9/11 happened thousands died.....I'm sorry but there will be conspiracy bollocks spouted about it...I feel sorry for the families of the dead that have to listen to such bollocks about it....
I agree but to play devils advocate if you were one of the families would you not want to know the real truth ?? "
Probably but if it was all a "plan" then I would of thought it would of been uncovered by now...it was a tragic day n history one I hope is never repeated. If they are saying that it was a plan then what's not to say 7/7 was not a set up? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Well,
I watched the Keith Allen Doc on Dianna called "Unlawful Killing", almost impossible to find on the net from a UK IP.
Interesting documentary that really helped display the lack of regard the powers that be hold toward us.
How did Jimi Saville get away with everything, media manipulation...
What is also worrying is that in the past, newspapers were held on microfiche in a library for anyone to see, now they are online - or are they, much "old News" now has to be paid for in order to see it!!!
Very 1984!!
Also see the documentary "StarSuckers", very interesting indeed, a hidden interview with Max Clifford, who mentions Simon Cowell and Jimi Saville as clients of his... MC is due in court soon, hasn't Cowells private life been more heterosexually public recently?
David Icke maybe be a looney, or maybe he "appears" to be a looney for his own safety. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"9/11 happened thousands died.....I'm sorry but there will be conspiracy bollocks spouted about it...I feel sorry for the families of the dead that have to listen to such bollocks about it....
I agree but to play devils advocate if you were one of the families would you not want to know the real truth ??
Probably but if it was all a "plan" then I would of thought it would of been uncovered by now...it was a tragic day n history one I hope is never repeated. If they are saying that it was a plan then what's not to say 7/7 was not a set up? "
Yeh absolutely and i hope its never repeated too, i guess if certain facts are put in front of you and doubts put in your mind you will start to question what really happened ?? It was a terrible incident, as was 7/7 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *igSuki81Man
over a year ago
Retirement Village |
"9/11 happened thousands died.....I'm sorry but there will be conspiracy bollocks spouted about it...I feel sorry for the families of the dead that have to listen to such bollocks about it....
I agree but to play devils advocate if you were one of the families would you not want to know the real truth ??
Probably but if it was all a "plan" then I would of thought it would of been uncovered by now...it was a tragic day n history one I hope is never repeated. If they are saying that it was a plan then what's not to say 7/7 was not a set up? "
look in to 7/7 you may find a few similarities
As i said in my first post on this, the tragedy is 3000+ dead on that day and countless more killed since all in the name of 'freedom' |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *igSuki81Man
over a year ago
Retirement Village |
" OK I'll bite.
In order: Firstly it is a misunderstanding of the properties of any metal to think it has to melt to fail. It only needs to heat to the point where it is malleable for structural failure to occur.
Secondly it was not the fire that caused the building to collapse floor by floor, it was the weight of the floors above that did that.
Thirdly you do not have to hit a building to make it collapse. You can undermine its foundations or just give it a good shake (as seen in earthquakes). The World Trade Centre complex was a warren of underground tunnels and carparks linking all the buildings, it is not surprising that when the 2 largest building fell the resulting shock-wave damaged surrounding buildings.
Fourthly there was steel sticking out of the debris. The fact that you fail to appreciate scale of destruction and exactly how large the debris field was is obvious from your post.
Finally again you show that you have very little grasp of how violent or fast the shock wave caused by gasses equalizing pressure is."
I actually wasn't looking for anyone to bite but don't mind a civilised debate
1st point - you're right softening a material can cause it to fail especially given the loads on top of it, commercial steel begins to lose integrity at about 1100C but structural steel is a lot higher than that (1600C i believe without looking through my materials book)
2nd point - that is the explanation given that the upper floors collapsed causing a chain of events leading to total failure but never in history, & there have been many sky scrapper fires before, has an entire building collapsed this way, neatly in a pile Given the 1st point the lower structure should have remained strong enough to hold the upper floors as it wasn't directly on fire and the heat coefficient of steel would mean that the transfer of heat energy from above didn't get to the ground floor structure that quickly. if it did give because of heat, given the position of impact the building would have fallen at an angle.
3rd point i agree with this but you fail to accept that no other building collapsed apart from one that was a fair distance away, logic and physics dictate that such violence to the lower structure would be absorbed by the immediate surrounding structure not 2 blocks away
4th point - please tell me you're kidding here i fail to appreciate the scale of destruction or i question what im being spoon fed? If you wish to discuss scales of destruction then the destruction was felt across the globe im afghan and iraq and to this day, that one tragic day has led to the loss of countless lives. Thats my view on the scale of destruction 
Final point - not bragging but im a chartered engineer and do this for a living. Not appreciating expanding gasses?? Really?? The air that allegedly popped the windows had more than sufficient flow paths to be expelled else where without popping windows and the fact that these gasses popped windows several stories below the actual collapse would suggest that it wasn't air pockets as lower down they would escape through door ways and vent mechanisms. The only way the windows would pop several stories below is if the entire building was sealed air tight!!
As i said in another post on this i am not conspiracy theorist but i do question what gets put before me as the 'truth' when clearly some of it doesn't add up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *RYBBWCouple
over a year ago
Leeds. |
"the american government planned 9/11
Correct. The planes which hit the towers were not passenger airliners. They were military drones (unpiloted remote control planes) with no windows or markings. Also, there was a pod under each plane which was fired into both towers moments before impact. WTC 7 collapsed even though no plane hit it. The plane which was supposed to hit it came down elsewhere (no bodies found in the wreckage). Watch the video's on youtube. All three WTC collapses were controled explosions just like those used to bring down blocks of flats.
As for the pentagon. A Boeng 736 is 125 feet wide (approx). The hole in the building is only 65 feet wide. You do the maths. Also, no bodies or plain wreckage was found.
purleease...
rocket pods..
have you actually looked at any of the footage of the planes before they hit..?
do you know anything about the effects of heat on steel..?
Seen plenty of footage. The pods are clearly visible beneath the planes.
Aviation fuel does not burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel.
The so called pods you refer to are called wing fairing and in the right light can look pronounced etc.
There is no footage from CNN of " pods " being fired into the building moments before and i have seen no such evidence whatsoever and have watched a lot of footage.
"
Wing fairing on the fuselage ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the american government planned 9/11
Correct. The planes which hit the towers were not passenger airliners. They were military drones (unpiloted remote control planes) with no windows or markings. Also, there was a pod under each plane which was fired into both towers moments before impact. WTC 7 collapsed even though no plane hit it. The plane which was supposed to hit it came down elsewhere (no bodies found in the wreckage). Watch the video's on youtube. All three WTC collapses were controled explosions just like those used to bring down blocks of flats.
As for the pentagon. A Boeng 736 is 125 feet wide (approx). The hole in the building is only 65 feet wide. You do the maths. Also, no bodies or plain wreckage was found.
purleease...
rocket pods..
have you actually looked at any of the footage of the planes before they hit..?
do you know anything about the effects of heat on steel..?
Seen plenty of footage. The pods are clearly visible beneath the planes.
Aviation fuel does not burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel.
The so called pods you refer to are called wing fairing and in the right light can look pronounced etc.
There is no footage from CNN of " pods " being fired into the building moments before and i have seen no such evidence whatsoever and have watched a lot of footage.
Wing fairing on the fuselage ?"
Yes look it up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It must be awful being frightened and suspicious of everything. When , hopefully ,you reach a ripe old age and are sat there contemplating hopefully you won't realise you were just a silly sod and haven't wasted your life worrying about things that never happened. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the american government planned 9/11
Correct. The planes which hit the towers were not passenger airliners. They were military drones (unpiloted remote control planes) with no windows or markings. Also, there was a pod under each plane which was fired into both towers moments before impact. WTC 7 collapsed even though no plane hit it. The plane which was supposed to hit it came down elsewhere (no bodies found in the wreckage). Watch the video's on youtube. All three WTC collapses were controled explosions just like those used to bring down blocks of flats.
As for the pentagon. A Boeng 736 is 125 feet wide (approx). The hole in the building is only 65 feet wide. You do the maths. Also, no bodies or plain wreckage was found."
thanks for the link and wow it made me rethink it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what did they do with all the people that supposedly died in the planes?? I mean really so all those that a grieving are putting it on....  "
thats a good one .. Where did the people go? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
parts of the engine block on the plane that was s'pose to have hit the pentagon were constructed from titanium.. none of which was found in the clear up...
was physically impossible for the explosion/heat to destroy these parts of the aircraft.
so where are they if they were there at all x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Anybody forget to mention that while this was all happening, the US government collected various relatives of Bin Laden, who were in the States on business, had them board a plane and delivered them safely to a hotel in France to await advice as to how the situation would be handled BEFORE BUSH EVEN KNEW THAT THEY HAD BEEN "ATTACKED"??? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *RYBBWCouple
over a year ago
Leeds. |
"So what did they do with all the people that supposedly died in the planes?? I mean really so all those that a grieving are putting it on.... thats a good one .. Where did the people go?"
Use the links. You'll be surprised ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So what did they do with all the people that supposedly died in the planes?? I mean really so all those that a grieving are putting it on.... thats a good one .. Where did the people go?
Use the links. You'll be surprised !"
Nah you are ok....I believe that they are dead and I really cannot be bothered to read utter bollocks... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *RYBBWCouple
over a year ago
Leeds. |
"So what did they do with all the people that supposedly died in the planes?? I mean really so all those that a grieving are putting it on.... thats a good one .. Where did the people go?
Use the links. You'll be surprised !
Nah you are ok....I believe that they are dead and I really cannot be bothered to read utter bollocks..."
They are links to video's. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So what did they do with all the people that supposedly died in the planes?? I mean really so all those that a grieving are putting it on.... thats a good one .. Where did the people go?
Use the links. You'll be surprised !
Nah you are ok....I believe that they are dead and I really cannot be bothered to read utter bollocks...
They are links to video's."
I know what they are like I said I won't get those minutes back intentionally watching something I believe is utter bollocks |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anybody forget to mention that while this was all happening, the US government collected various relatives of Bin Laden, who were in the States on business, had them board a plane and delivered them safely to a hotel in France to await advice as to how the situation would be handled BEFORE BUSH EVEN KNEW THAT THEY HAD BEEN "ATTACKED"???"
So they were delivered to a hotel in Paris before Bush knew they were attacked ? It's at least a seven hour flight from the USA to Paris , I'm sure bush was informed as the attacks were happening. Or was that an actor in a film studio ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *RYBBWCouple
over a year ago
Leeds. |
"Anybody forget to mention that while this was all happening, the US government collected various relatives of Bin Laden, who were in the States on business, had them board a plane and delivered them safely to a hotel in France to await advice as to how the situation would be handled BEFORE BUSH EVEN KNEW THAT THEY HAD BEEN "ATTACKED"???
So they were delivered to a hotel in Paris before Bush knew they were attacked ? It's at least a seven hour flight from the USA to Paris , I'm sure bush was informed as the attacks were happening. Or was that an actor in a film studio ? "
Bush swore blind on more than one occasion that he knew of the attacks because he saw the first plane hit the first tower. He remembers it clearly because a tv was on the news channel as he entered a classroom at the school he was visiting......
Impossible as it was not televised. The ONLY footage of the first plane strike was caught by fire service men who were filming a training video nearby. Their footage was not broadcast until well after the second plane hit.
Yet, despite his country being under attack from God knows who, he chose to sit and listen to children reading from books.
OK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anybody forget to mention that while this was all happening, the US government collected various relatives of Bin Laden, who were in the States on business, had them board a plane and delivered them safely to a hotel in France to await advice as to how the situation would be handled BEFORE BUSH EVEN KNEW THAT THEY HAD BEEN "ATTACKED"???
So they were delivered to a hotel in Paris before Bush knew they were attacked ? It's at least a seven hour flight from the USA to Paris , I'm sure bush was informed as the attacks were happening. Or was that an actor in a film studio ?
Bush swore blind on more than one occasion that he knew of the attacks because he saw the first plane hit the first tower. He remembers it clearly because a tv was on the news channel as he entered a classroom at the school he was visiting......
Impossible as it was not televised. The ONLY footage of the first plane strike was caught by fire service men who were filming a training video nearby. Their footage was not broadcast until well after the second plane hit.
Yet, despite his country being under attack from God knows who, he chose to sit and listen to children reading from books.
OK."
How does that answer my reply or for that matter prove that the American government were involved ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm pretty sure Darth Vadar was Luke's inside man for destroying the Death Star! Why? Luke, a rookie. taking that shot?!
Darth the only survivor! Happens to be his dad! (I would say 'spoiler alert' but assume you've all seen it by now) I can't believe it's never spoken about. Bet the press have been silenced! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Bush swore blind on more than one occasion that he knew of the attacks because he saw the first plane hit the first tower. He remembers it clearly because a tv was on the news channel as he entered a classroom at the school he was visiting......
Impossible as it was not televised. The ONLY footage of the first plane strike was caught by fire service men who were filming a training video nearby. Their footage was not broadcast until well after the second plane hit.
? "
And if you read his quotes properly he said he saw a plane hit the tower, nothing about the first plane. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anybody forget to mention that while this was all happening, the US government collected various relatives of Bin Laden, who were in the States on business, had them board a plane and delivered them safely to a hotel in France to await advice as to how the situation would be handled BEFORE BUSH EVEN KNEW THAT THEY HAD BEEN "ATTACKED"???
So they were delivered to a hotel in Paris before Bush knew they were attacked ? It's at least a seven hour flight from the USA to Paris , I'm sure bush was informed as the attacks were happening. Or was that an actor in a film studio ?
Bush swore blind on more than one occasion that he knew of the attacks because he saw the first plane hit the first tower. He remembers it clearly because a tv was on the news channel as he entered a classroom at the school he was visiting......
Impossible as it was not televised. The ONLY footage of the first plane strike was caught by fire service men who were filming a training video nearby. Their footage was not broadcast until well after the second plane hit.
Yet, despite his country being under attack from God knows who, he chose to sit and listen to children reading from books.
OK."
I think you have been brain washed by you tube |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *RYBBWCouple
over a year ago
Leeds. |
"
Bush swore blind on more than one occasion that he knew of the attacks because he saw the first plane hit the first tower. He remembers it clearly because a tv was on the news channel as he entered a classroom at the school he was visiting......
Impossible as it was not televised. The ONLY footage of the first plane strike was caught by fire service men who were filming a training video nearby. Their footage was not broadcast until well after the second plane hit.
?
And if you read his quotes properly he said he saw a plane hit the tower, nothing about the first plane. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. "
I'm not going from a quote. I'm going by the several video's on youtube with the words actually coming from his mouth.
But let's not let Bush's own words get in the way....... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *RYBBWCouple
over a year ago
Leeds. |
"Anybody forget to mention that while this was all happening, the US government collected various relatives of Bin Laden, who were in the States on business, had them board a plane and delivered them safely to a hotel in France to await advice as to how the situation would be handled BEFORE BUSH EVEN KNEW THAT THEY HAD BEEN "ATTACKED"???
So they were delivered to a hotel in Paris before Bush knew they were attacked ? It's at least a seven hour flight from the USA to Paris , I'm sure bush was informed as the attacks were happening. Or was that an actor in a film studio ?
Bush swore blind on more than one occasion that he knew of the attacks because he saw the first plane hit the first tower. He remembers it clearly because a tv was on the news channel as he entered a classroom at the school he was visiting......
Impossible as it was not televised. The ONLY footage of the first plane strike was caught by fire service men who were filming a training video nearby. Their footage was not broadcast until well after the second plane hit.
Yet, despite his country being under attack from God knows who, he chose to sit and listen to children reading from books.
OK.
I think you have been brain washed by you tube "
Must have been. Youtube and the scientists/professionals who have rubbished the "official" version of events. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Bush swore blind on more than one occasion that he knew of the attacks because he saw the first plane hit the first tower. He remembers it clearly because a tv was on the news channel as he entered a classroom at the school he was visiting......
Impossible as it was not televised. The ONLY footage of the first plane strike was caught by fire service men who were filming a training video nearby. Their footage was not broadcast until well after the second plane hit.
?
And if you read his quotes properly he said he saw a plane hit the tower, nothing about the first plane. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.
I'm not going from a quote. I'm going by the several video's on youtube with the words actually coming from his mouth.
But let's not let Bush's own words get in the way......."
I've seen cats talk on YouTube , is that true as well ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *RYBBWCouple
over a year ago
Leeds. |
"
Bush swore blind on more than one occasion that he knew of the attacks because he saw the first plane hit the first tower. He remembers it clearly because a tv was on the news channel as he entered a classroom at the school he was visiting......
Impossible as it was not televised. The ONLY footage of the first plane strike was caught by fire service men who were filming a training video nearby. Their footage was not broadcast until well after the second plane hit.
?
And if you read his quotes properly he said he saw a plane hit the tower, nothing about the first plane. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.
I'm not going from a quote. I'm going by the several video's on youtube with the words actually coming from his mouth.
But let's not let Bush's own words get in the way.......
I've seen cats talk on YouTube , is that true as well ? "
I'm sure they spoke more sense than politicians do lol. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *igSuki81Man
over a year ago
Retirement Village |
"... I've seen cats talk on YouTube , is that true as well ? "
No cats can't talk but if someone questions what we are told is the 'truth' is that bad or are they a tin hat wearing weird conspirasist |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"... I've seen cats talk on YouTube , is that true as well ?
No cats can't talk but if someone questions what we are told is the 'truth' is that bad or are they a tin hat wearing weird conspirasist "
Questioning is one thing , believing everything you see on YouTube or what's written on a website by someone who rarely leaves their bedroom is a totally different matter.
My conspiracy theory is how come most of the people I discuss this with online is either a construction engineer or another such expert ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *RYBBWCouple
over a year ago
Leeds. |
"... I've seen cats talk on YouTube , is that true as well ?
No cats can't talk but if someone questions what we are told is the 'truth' is that bad or are they a tin hat wearing weird conspirasist
Questioning is one thing , believing everything you see on YouTube or what's written on a website by someone who rarely leaves their bedroom is a totally different matter.
My conspiracy theory is how come most of the people I discuss this with online is either a construction engineer or another such expert ? "
Scientists, pilots and demolition experts never leave their bedrooms !
No wonder nothing ever gets done. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"... I've seen cats talk on YouTube , is that true as well ?
No cats can't talk but if someone questions what we are told is the 'truth' is that bad or are they a tin hat wearing weird conspirasist
Questioning is one thing , believing everything you see on YouTube or what's written on a website by someone who rarely leaves their bedroom is a totally different matter.
My conspiracy theory is how come most of the people I discuss this with online is either a construction engineer or another such expert ?
Scientists, pilots and demolition experts never leave their bedrooms !
No wonder nothing ever gets done."
I'll get back to you in a minute. I'm just watching a goat skateboard down 5th avenue. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *RYBBWCouple
over a year ago
Leeds. |
"... I've seen cats talk on YouTube , is that true as well ?
No cats can't talk but if someone questions what we are told is the 'truth' is that bad or are they a tin hat wearing weird conspirasist
Questioning is one thing , believing everything you see on YouTube or what's written on a website by someone who rarely leaves their bedroom is a totally different matter.
My conspiracy theory is how come most of the people I discuss this with online is either a construction engineer or another such expert ?
Scientists, pilots and demolition experts never leave their bedrooms !
No wonder nothing ever gets done.
I'll get back to you in a minute. I'm just watching a goat skateboard down 5th avenue. "
You should have offered to use a condom lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *igSuki81Man
over a year ago
Retirement Village |
"... I've seen cats talk on YouTube , is that true as well ?
No cats can't talk but if someone questions what we are told is the 'truth' is that bad or are they a tin hat wearing weird conspirasist
Questioning is one thing , believing everything you see on YouTube or what's written on a website by someone who rarely leaves their bedroom is a totally different matter.
My conspiracy theory is how come most of the people I discuss this with online is either a construction engineer or another such expert ? "
Fine i'll give up my job and we'll have this conversation then
There's a flip side to your post, my theory didn't come from youtube or online. It came from plain old science and physics and 12 years ago after the events happened and there were various unanswered questions that to this day refuse to be answered.
I still stand by what i originally said, the tragedy of that day wasn't the just the 3000+ that died but the countless more ho have been killed since which have included uncounted civilians, innocent bystanders and our service men & women!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
