Crozza Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 For those non-believers who marginize 911 skeptics as kooks you will eventually wake the fuck up because you will have no other choice. These people and their corporate controllers up at Wall Street and the City of London are hell bent on invading the 60 countries on their hit list over the coming decades and if they have to blow up more buildings and trains to do so you can bet your life on it that they will. The more ignorant to it we are the more we will lose our freedoms until this 4th Reich is towering over us and we begin to wonder, what ever happened to never again?? I will be the one to bite but only because far too many people died in those buildings. It isnt funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phildo Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Your wasting your time discussing the pentagon crash...The more ignorant to it we are the more we will lose our freedoms until this 4th Reich is towering over us and we begin to wonder, what ever happened to never again?? And here we have the crux of the argument: "If you disagree with my viewpoint (whatever it is), you're just a sheep who swallows what you're force-fed" Personally, I've read a lot on this subject - on both sides of the conspiracy fence - and I've made my mind up on my own, thank you. Ignorance works both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScope Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 I'm still undecided. Currently reading "The New Pearl Harbour". Lots of interesting stuff. What I would like to see is one of the hardline sceptics (phildo? theoldgit?) take on each of the points that crozza has raised (and there are quite a few of them) and counter against each one. It would only be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 What I would like to see is one of the hardline sceptics (phildo? theoldgit?) take on each of the points that crozza has raised (and there are quite a few of them) and counter against each one. It would only be fair. I'd rather poke my eye with cocktail sticks that read through any more conspiracy theories Why dont people talk about the speed at which each tower collapsed in approx 10 seconds which completely defies the laws of physics Defies the laws of physics? How? In what way were the laws of physics defied? Are you a physicist? Why dont people discuss the fact that the hijackers were useless and couldnt fly Cessnas Did they have pilot licenses? Whatever plausible points any conspiracy supporters may have are lost in a whole lot of nonsense that others spout out. Other wilder theories I've heard revolve around dummy planes (with transponders turned off) meeting with the real planes and then the real planes turn their transponders off the the decoy planes turn theirs on and then fly into the towers. Why? Why save a few plane passengers when you're going to kill a few thousand others. Why the bit about transponders? Not having your transponder turned on doesn't make you a stealth aircraft. From earlier in the thread The 3 black boxes were taken by the FBI and not seen since, but i thought there was 4 planes meaning 4 black boxes, slipped up there uncle sam. So it's easier for some conspiracy fans to believe that despite a multi billion pound conspiracy "uncle sam" couldn't count planes and black boxes, rather than think that most planes have two black boxes and presumably the others were destroyed. It's this kind of false "fact" and the willingness to believe it that make me a skeptic about any conspiracy theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 From earlier in the thread The 3 black boxes were taken by the FBI and not seen since, but i thought there was 4 planes meaning 4 black boxes, slipped up there uncle sam. So it's easier for some conspiracy fans to believe that despite a multi billion pound conspiracy "uncle sam" couldn't count planes and black boxes, rather than think that most planes have two black boxes and presumably the others were destroyed. They recovered the Pentagon pair and the pair from the one that ditched before it ploughed into anything of note. That's documented fact. They recovered three of the four from the WTC planes. Looking at that fireball, reading the estimates temperatures of the plane fuel burning and watching thousands of tons of steel and concrete come crashing down on it, I'm surprised they recovered any, nevermind 3 out of the 4. Oh, and I found this out by reading the Internet. The same Internet that tells me none of them were recovered from any site, all of them were recovered and then any number from 1-7 depending on which site you read. Maybe all these nutcases need to get together and make sure they have their story straight. After all, some people seem to believe whatever claptrap is posted on a website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tameelf Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 on 911 norad stood down for 2 hours allowing 4 mavrick planes to fly unpoliced over 4 newclear power plants. seems to me people in power knew the targets in advance. why cripple the econemy when you can destroy the nation yes thro away all the 911fog and concentrate on wtc7. this was probibly the penn planes intended target .but because the passengers regained control it had to be shot down.rumsfeild is on record as having shot it down this would explain a engin found miles away from the main impact mainstream media is owned by zionists. rothschilds first media buyout was rueters there is a information war on the internet every fourum has its paid pr people a oxford graduate won a 100 million pounds contract to place nice news in bagdads newspapers i guess 5 qwid was spent in here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Well, I think you've managed to state your case coherently and clearly. I'm sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 "newclear power plants"....we have to get ourselves some of those! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T Reznor Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 WHY DID WTC 7 FALL??? WHY? WHY?? WHY??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Errrrr.......... Gravity perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crozza Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 If you dropped a bowling ball from the top of each tower it would take almost the same amount of time to hit the ground as it did for the towers to collapse. Help me out here, my maths is quite rusty The WTC towers are about 381m high? A bowling ball, in free fall, would travel about 4800m in 10 seconds (your figure from previous posting). That's about 12.5 times further, but knock a bit off for air resistance How is that almost the same? Or is this another "false authority fact"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Or is this another "false authority fact"? He read it on the Internets so it must be true. And everything ever written in a book is accurate too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.