Off Topic Paris Attacks !

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Tobes said:
Nowhere to run? <laugh>

And here's me thinking that it was you that was the one posing the batshit mental conspiracies...

You're ****ing hilarious
Click to expand...


Yet for the umpteenth time you fail to give a simple explanation, one you now claim to know. You keep repeating "conspracies" and laughy faces and that link over and over, that might seema bit odd if I didn't already know you were damaged goods.

If what you have to say explains the plane thing, I will admit it, 100%
 
"Lizards?" he said said:
that is the south tower entry point, you don't even know what you are posting, you are doing a Bodanki.
Click to expand...
In all seriousness, what would you say to my former colleagues who escaped the North Tower and then watched the plane fly into it? That they are ignorant and don't know what they're talking about? I think they'd consider you either mad or twisted.
 
Stan said:
In all seriousness, what would you say to my former colleagues who escaped the North Tower and then watched the plane fly into it? That they are ignorant and don't know what they're talking about? I think they'd consider you either mad or twisted.
Click to expand...


I am saying I put no stock in 3rd hand accounts from forum users. If you are offended by that then.. I don't get it

You are using emptional shaming, its a woman's tactic ffs
 
"Lizards?" he said said:
I am saying I put no stock in 3rd hand accounts from forum users. If you are offended by that then.. I don't get it

You are using emptional shaming, its a woman's tactic ffs
Click to expand...
Emotional shaming? What the fact that he personally knows people who were there on the day and watched a plane slam into the tower?

You'll dismiss that kind of direct association but swallow every line of the cranks on the net sat in their skids in their Ma's spare room, coming up with utter bullshit about the supposed inconsistencies of the day's events.

The CIA supposedly spent millions and roped in thousands into the biggest conspiracy in the history of the World, planes, building collapses et al, and they'd have got away with it if it wasn't for some flute who unraveled the entire plot with the aid of you tube and a Mac <laugh>
 
"Lizards?" he said said:
I am saying I put no stock in 3rd hand accounts from forum users. If you are offended by that then.. I don't get it

You are using emptional shaming, its a woman's tactic ffs
Click to expand...
That's a pathetic way to avoid answering the question.

Your world must be really small if you can't reach out to someone who was actually there. You seem interested in finding the truth, surely through the six degrees of separation theory (you like theories!) you can connect with an eye witness?!

You put no stock in 3rd (actually 2nd) hand accounts from forum users but a lot of stock in speculative accounts by random internet loony tunes.

You're off your rocker pal. People like you exacerbate the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tobes The Grinch
Tobes said:
Emotional shaming? What the fact that he personally knows people who were there on the day and watched a plane slam into the tower?

You'll dismiss that kind of direct association but swallow every line of the cranks on the net sat in their skids in their Ma's spare room, coming up with utter bullshit about the supposed inconsistencies of the day's events.

The CIA supposedly spent millions and roped in thousands into the biggest conspiracy in the history of the World, planes, building collapses et al, and they'd have got away with it if it wasn't for some flute who unraveled the entire plot with the aid of you tube and a Mac <laugh>
Click to expand...


I see you are now replying to other posts to someone else to avoid posting the evidence you say you have that explains the plane thing.

Oh you also saw this that day on BBC, this is the same BBC World report video, the plane going in this time. Go watch the BBC video yourself, both the magic one wing plane and the magic penetration of the South Tower and survival of the front end until the explosion are all in the BBC video. This is not a photoshop
You must log in or register to see images
 
"Lizards?" he said said:
I see you are now replying to other posts to someone else to avoid posting the evidence you say you have that explains the plane thing.

Oh you also saw this that day on BBC, this is the same BBC World report video, the plane going in this time. Go watch the BBC video yourself, both the mafic one wing plane and the magic penetration of the South Tower and survival of the front end until the explosion are all in the BBC video. This is not a photoshop
You must log in or register to see images
Click to expand...

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
 
Can't you all get back to blaming Muslims or the non Muslim muslims.. Or the non Muslim muslims pretending to be Muslims for the benefit and foreign policy goals of the USA...

And calling each other names?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sucky and Treble
Tobes said:
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
Click to expand...


You say you can refute this, then refute it. I created those screenshots I didn't just post a link, are we gettting into the whole "wiki is a valid source on it's own" thing again?

Post it, it explains how this BBC report video shows us some cartoon physics and a plane with a disappearedwing.

EDIT: It's not a video anomaly. Clearly, when watched in realtime it is not a glitch. The wing is not there. wtf
 
Last edited:
"Lizards?" he said said:
No you said how is that possibe as he was serving in the pacific. If you can back that up with a post number I can read I'll happily retract that statement. 1)

You were questioning the probability of my claim that Bush did the legwork for dad Prescott. Saying he was in the war was irrelevant, he WAS with the family WHEN Nixon was recruited. 2)

According to Nixon's biography, he was recruited in 46, George Bush was homourable discharged in Spetember 1945. Recruited, not turned into anything instantly, Bush could easily have had a part in it as not, but you used that to "disprove" the whole debate on the Bush family, like I said you use miner errors to try pull the whole thing down, in this case, it was prescott who recruited him, but it was irrelevant in terms of the point I was making about what the Bush family have managed to pull off over the years. 3) That was lost in your irrelevant point about HW Bush, but I did accept you were correct about prescott at that time calling the shots.

That's the thing with you in your little list of things, plane model wrong, Monarch name, and my brainfart of placing Luistainia in WWII, even I thought what the **** when you pointed that out <laugh> Those are details in a wider debate, none of which actually changed the main premise, 4

yet you use these to pull down a whole argument cos once you see a mistake you go off on one of your arrogant slating games, rational debate ends at that point. same **** over and over, I don't even be talking to you and you come at me like this muppet, but that's easy on a forum aint it me little coward. 5

Let me give you an example of your troll logic.

Claim, A man stole a red brick, Donga logic dictates that if the brick was blue then no crime was committed 6

There was not hundreds of news agencies liar, there was 5. All the footage was shot by 5 networks.

All of the witnesses that claimed on that moring to see AA planes were employees or relatives of employees of those networks. 7

You still have not answered a basic physics question, how does this leave no hole. 8

This is what you saw on BBC that day. There is no ****ing way that happens. End of
You must log in or register to see images
Click to expand...

1) That's your skunk memory feller. You specifically said Bush snr recruited him in the 40's and I said he'd only just got out of the navy - how did he get into such a position of power?

2) You didn't say Bush snr did the legwork for Prescott at all, and you ****ing know it. You said Bush snr recriuted him in the 40's and made, at that stage, no mention of Prescott.

3) A point that both Tobes agreed with, as I remember (I know I certainly did) in the general consensus that US presidents are bought and sold.

4) Astonishing chutzpah from a tinfoil hat. You make whole theories based upon a seeming inconsistency, yet whinge to the heavens if you're asked to get basic facts correct. The fact that you're oblivious to this paradox speaks volumes.

5) Wow, like you're ****ing Clint Eastwood, posting from your safe den in Finland.

6) If a man is accused of stealing a blue brick and is found in possession of a red brick I think it unwise, based on that much evidence, to charge him with stealing a blue brick. Perhaps you have different rules in The Court of Judge Spliffhead.

7) I quoted to you previously about a survivor from the North Tower on a documentary on Discovery who said he saw the AA markings of the plane as it crashed into the tower. You replied that the NSA/CIA must have made him say that, if indeed he'd been there at all. As such, I can't expand the eyewitness argument about 9/11 any more with you as you talk complete gibberish when faced with any counterpoint.

8) Again! For what must be five years now, both on here and in pm's, you just ignore any argument you're presented wit. Do you expect some perfect silohette(sp) back and front when an airline carrying hundreds of tons of aviation fuel crashes into a building of glass and concrete and stell at five hundred knotts? For every 'expert' you push forward, you've been presented with times ten who debunk them.

You seem to think this (and Sandy Hook, flouride, global warming, shape-shifting lizards) is a war of attrition, whereby qualitative points (such as getting the ****ing wrong world war) can simply be overwhelmed by quantative cut-and-paste nonsense until you get no reply. Get that dog and go for a walk Sis, You're convincing no-one, not even yourself, if the shrillness and growing hysteria of you posts is to be considered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tobes The Grinch
donga kloppo said:
1) That's your skunk memory feller. You specifically said Bush snr recruited him in the 40's and I said he'd only just got out of the navy - how did he get into such a position of power?

2) You didn't say Bush snr did the legwork for Prescott at all, and you ****ing know it. You said Bush snr recriuted him in the 40's and made, at that stage, no mention of Prescott.

3) A point that both Tobes agreed with, as I remember (I know I certainly did) in the general consensus that US presidents are bought and sold.

4) Astonishing chutzpah from a tinfoil hat. You make whole theories based upon a seeming inconsistency, yet whinge to the heavens if you're asked to get basic facts correct. The fact that you're oblivious to this paradox speaks volumes.

5) Wow, like you're ****ing Clint Eastwood, posting from your safe den in Finland.

6) If a man is accused of stealing a blue brick and is found in possession of a red brick I think it unwise, based on that much evidence, to charge him with stealing a blue brick. Perhaps you have different rules in The Court of Judge Spliffhead.

7) I quoted to you previously about a survivor from the North Tower on a documentary on Discovery who said he saw the AA markings of the plane as it crashed into the tower. You replied that the NSA/CIA must have made him say that, if indeed he'd been there at all. As such, I can't expand the eyewitness argument about 9/11 any more with you as you talk complete gibberish when faced with any counterpoint.

8) Again! For what must be five years now, both on here and in pm's, you just ignore any argument you're presented wit. Do you expect some perfect silohette(sp) back and front when an airline carrying hundreds of tons of aviation fuel crashes into a building of glass and concrete and stell at five hundred knotts? For every 'expert' you push forward, you've been presented with times ten who debunk them.

You seem to think this (and Sandy Hook, flouride, global warming, shape-shifting lizards) is a war of attrition, whereby qualitative points (such as getting the ****ing wrong world war) can simply be overwhelmed by quantative cut-and-paste nonsense until you get no reply. Get that dog and go for a walk Sis, You're convincing no-one, not even yourself, if the shrillness and growing hysteria of you posts is to be considered.
Click to expand...

You know why i cant stand talking to you, yur bullshit.

Your first point is all I could read because the bit in bold you created was followed by this line and you ignored it to make a completely bullshit argument, which is ****in fail.

"I did accept you were correct about prescott at that time calling the shots" << miss this did you?

You can't even make a balanced argument and as usual, misdirect with ****e, and avoid the salient points.

No doubt the rest of that nonsene is just as cack as the first point
 
"Lizards?" he said said:
You know why i cant stand talking to you, yur bullshit.

Your first point is all I could read because the bit in bold you created was followed by this line and you ignored it to make a completely bullshit argument, which is ****in fail.

"I did accept you were correct about prescott at that time calling the shots" << miss this did you?

You can't even make a balanced argument and as usual, misdirect with ****e, and avoid the salient points.

No doubt the rest of that nonsene is just as cack as the first point
Click to expand...
http://www.albawaba.com/loop/conspi...ideo-game-proves-paris-attack-was-hoax-768544
 
  • Like
Reactions: * Record Points Total
"Lizards?" he said said:
that is the south tower entry point, you don't even know what you are posting, you are doing a Bodanki.
Click to expand...

Right...

Well flight 175 hit its target at a much higher speed than the first plane. As a result, its body broke up on impact. A jet engine, or parts of were found close by immediately after the plane hit.

The reason there is no large exit hole is because the plane didn't travel through the tower the same way it did with the first one. The speed coupled with the flight path explain the reason.

In many ways its like how bullets can sometimes pass right through an object and other times, never come out the other side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back