Really? I mean come on now.

Discussion in '9/11' started by macljack, Mar 4, 2011.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not very scientific.

    Take a look at your video. See the large sections of the building outpacing the central collapse? Those pieces are falling at closer to free fall speed, as there is nothing to impede their fall. The majority building itself falls much slower, as it is meeting resistance while it falls.

    How do you know your online video is playing at speed, and not sped up?
     
  2. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Because I own original copies of the fraud in real time. What's your excuse?
     
  3. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    'original copy' is an oxymoron.

    You seem to have dodged the first part of my post.
     
  4. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I suppose they're every bit as original as are those 5 frames of proof the Pentagon offered up. Fact is, you wouldn't acknowledge ANYTHING that didn't support the "official" lie, isn't that right? "Technically"...I didn't "dodge" anything (using your logic). Rather, I avoided answering what is a fairly stupid question.
     
  5. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Changing the topic and acknowledging that you avoid questions.

    Wouldn't it be easier to just cite sources to support your claims?
     
  6. Whale

    Whale Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It the old hands over the eyes and ears syndrome.
    The definition of being a groveltard.
     
  7. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    2 + 2 equals 4. Aren't you going to ask me what my source is now?
     
  8. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No.

    Now, if you were to claim 2+2=5 I would ask you to source that claim. That's a better analogy of a 'truther' statement.
     
  9. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    2 + 2 does equal 5. This guy I used to work with told me so, and my broken calculator also tells me so. The information has to be true. The calculator is tells me that. Independent verification isn't needed, just a statement from the manufacturer that it meets all specifications. I'm even thinking about putting out 5 pages from the back of the manual to further verify it. That would prove it has to be correct.
     
  10. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's a perfect analogy of 'trutherthink'. Well done.
     
  11. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I had no idea there was a toy with that name and I don't care. It's beyond sad you falsely accuse someone of where they got their username and it's unbelievably pathetic after I show you simply did a google search and used the first available link that you actually try to hide behind your own son. Go ahead and whine about it some more. If you don't want to get called out for trying to hide behind your own children then don't exploit them to make false accusations against posters.
     
  12. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Go back to asking why wmd wasn't planted in iraq and that light poles prove it was flight 77. Using hollow and inertia is just new levels of absurdity.
     
  13. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well those two points are still valid from both a physical evidence and a point of logic from which twoofers have not escaped. Or maybe you could tell us what took down the light poles if it wasn't AA77. We both know you won't.

    The mass of 13% of the building is more than enough to cause the progressive collapse; as we saw.

    Morning batting practice!
     
  14. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your points have been shown to be utterly ridiculous but that doesn't stop repeating the silly claims. Probably because they were not created out of evidence but only to try and defend the OCT.
     
  15. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
  16. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We all knew he wouldn't. 'Loose Changers' dodge anything factual.
     
  17. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Try as you might the lightpoles have never been explained away. :nana:

    Say what you wail (he he he), nobody in the twoofer camp can come up with why "they" would have not planted WMDs in Iraq to shore up their credibility back home.

    Too bad; I was looking forward to more battin' practice.
     
  18. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Is it possible people have learned to simply not care what some in your camp think? The light poles and wmd claim are utterly unbelievably freaking stoopid. Flight 77 wasn't the only thing in the world with wings on 9/11 and most people agree something flew in to the pentagon. Gee, if somethig other than 77 flew in to the pentagon is it possible it knocked down the poles? Or maybe they were special light poles that could only have been knocked down by 77? Hahahaha!!!

    Plantg wmd was not feasible and it would have been an utterly insane unnecessary risk. Try to pay attention:

    The Bush admin never got in any trouble over not finding wmd. Even after bush flat out admitted they were not found......not a freaking dam thing happened. Good jellies! No wonder you people accept the OCT on such blind faith. You cant even figure out your own ignorant wmd fantasies.
     
  19. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Like the fact you falsely accuse me of where I got my username then you exploit your own kid in the process? That's simply freaking sick.
     
  20. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The preponderance of the evidence involving the origins of your username are on the side of the OCT. You're going to have to provide factual evidence in order to refute it.
     
  21. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Anybody interested in the subject has to acknowledge the physical evidence. Otherwise they are probably in the twoofer camp where the interest is to simply get attention by making themselves a larger buffoon than the next twoofer.

    Yes but it is the only thing missing with that wingspan. Airlines keep a pretty close watch on their planes when they go missing. One hundred percent of all wreckage is that of AA77; 100% of the DNA matches those who were on board AA77 with the exception of the five hijackers. One hundred percent of all radar tacking shows AA77 going into Pentagon airspace and not out of it.
    At some point the population that believes it was anything else is just those in the twoofer camp and nobody cares what they think. Obviously.

    Except nothing else flew into the pentagon as has been proven time and again. You should really look at evidence but then again your goal isn't to find out what happened, it is to get attention. Isn't it.

    Actually it would be 100% safe to plant wmds. Planting thermite or thermate or nano thermite or whatever you'll swear was in the WTC complex next week would have beein an insane risk to take given there thousands of people working there. In Iraq we controlled 100% of the country very quickly and could have secured any part we wanted long enough to plant whatever we wanted. Nobody really knows why you would think this would be some sort of impossible thing to do but then again, nobody really cares what you think.
     
  22. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, they SAID there were WMD's so, it why bother with the details. Let's invade a country and worry about the details later. Oh, and "inertia" accounts for the disappearance of the 47 VERTICAL columns that were the core of the buildings. See...you have to just throw out logic when it comes to the "official" story. I haven't seen a response to those VERTICAL columns yet. I know they wouldn't dodge anything so I guess I missed it.
    Bottom line...whether it's magical light poles, disappearing 90+ floors of columns of steel pointed at the sky, or invading a country using false, manufactured propaganda, it is the same concept. That is to simply follow along like a good little shill, question nothing, ignore common sense and stick to the "story".
     
  23. AshenLady

    AshenLady New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    5,555
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Spelling must not be very important anymore. There are so many grammatical and spelling errors, I can hardly believe.

    I'm old. We didn't have spelling checkers when I was growing up and in school.
     
  24. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It would have been easy to plant the WMDs and rationalize the invasion; certainly easier than wiring 3 buildings for demolition as you "people" believe happened.

    Of course your goal isn't to make cogent arguments; just get attention. How sad.
     
  25. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No...they just invaded it anyway, because they wanted to. 9/11 was the invented justification. They assumed nobody would care about the details of pre-emptive war after their staged production. They were partially correct.
    I'm sorry you are so sad. It'll be ok though. The public is coming around to this kind of old Soviet styled propaganda.
     

Share This Page