The Conspiracy Theory

bondurant

You've already shown that you won't engage with people with anything other than gibberish so you can hardly complain that you get the same back can you Manc? Fair's fair.

chris_bass

We're not back on 9/11 are we?

Here's a curious thought, why does Alex Jones sell lots of expensive stuff to protect you from all the stuff he says harms you?

bondurant

I came across this while googling Alex Jones: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/10079244/The-911-conspiracy-theorist-who-changed-his-mind.html

So all hope is not lost.

chris_bass

Bondurant wrote:

I came across this while googling Alex Jones: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/10079244/The-911-conspiracy-theorist-who-changed-his-mind.html

So all hope is not lost.

From Salford? Greater Manchester? Hmmmmm......

Stevo_666

RDW wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

How did NBC film a ball if it isn't there?
How did NBC film a ball if it isn't there?
...
How did NBC film a ball if it isn't there?

Can you see the question yet?

Will you answer it?

I guess it's a similar question to how it was possible to take the millions of pictures that exist of a ball (the Earth) if it isn't ball shaped. Using Manc-logic, it must be a fake :P

Just for info, here are 43 separate pieces of footage of the attack on the South Tower of the WTC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpUKM0MFNaM
From 3:51 onwards there is multiple footage of a plane flying directly into the South Tower - many of these showing a direct view of the impact and they all look like a plane to me. But clearly all of these must have been faked, unlike the one low res video of a ball posted by someone whose other Youtube uploads include:
- 'Triangle UFO over Phoenix'
- 'Did the FBI know about the Boston bombing beforehand?'
- 'Major Israel lobbyist - we need a false flag attack to start a war with Iran'
Clearly a reliable, grounded sort of chap with no agenda

Manc33

Yet on NBC it was a ball. :roll:

Charlie Veitch was accused of being an intelligence asset at one time, I don't discount it.

Stevo_666

Manc33 wrote:

Yet on NBC it was a ball. :roll:

Charlie Veitch was accused of being an intelligence asset at one time, I don't discount it.

Have a look at the link I posted - as mentioned, 43 separate pieces of video footage. Rather stronger evidence than one you posted, no?

city_boy

Manc33 wrote:

Yet on NBC it was a ball. :roll:

Yet on the blurred, low res NBC video it looked like a ball!!

You put so much of you belief into one blurred video but choose to ignore 40 odd crystal clear images :roll:

Stevo_666

City Boy wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Yet on NBC it was a ball. :roll:

Yet on the blurred, low res NBC video it looked like a ball!!

You put so much of you belief into one blurred video but choose to ignore 40 odd crystal clear images :roll:

While at the same time, all known clear images and good quality video footage of the Earth are fake...

city_boy

Manc33 wrote:

Ignoring reality is a novel concept, but not one I am likely to pursue, for obvious reasons.

This is quite possibly one of the funniest things I've read this year

Manc33

Maybe that's because I realize certain people had advanced knowledge of the attacks, for example the irregular put options on the two affected airlines.

Or this:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/ne ... ck-1.70579

So then its not hard to broadcast a "live feed" that isn't really live and have it all CGI'd in preperation for broadcast. Then you could put anything you want together... in that scenario the NBC footage would simply be the only footage we have where they forgot to put a plane around the ball on that particular footage.

Your proofs are laughable but I can understand why, you don't know any of the other stuff about 9/11. All you know is 19 Arabs did it.

"all known clear images and good quality video footage of the Earth are fake..."

Post some then?

No one posted anything, all I got was the usual cartoonish mock-up images of a perfectly spherical looking earth.

No videos of the Earth spinning have been posted either.

You're quite happy for there to be no genuine images or videos of Earth from space? OK but I'm not and wonder why there are none. It is something I wouldn't stop wondering, unless I saw some. The reasons are obvious - its 2015, everything is in HD video these days, NASA takes in billions of dollars a year and gives practically nothing back.

Maybe I should just ask this:

Why is it unreasonable to expect NASA to show us images and videos of Earth from space?

You can't answer it without some mind bending going on, I mean you have to say something like "Oh I don't know but they just don't release them" lol. Some stupid answer that doesn't mean anything when they absolutely should be releasing images all the time, over 30 years of space flights and not one image or video, but we're supposed to believe all the space flights really happened, tell another one.

Prove it. Show me the pics, I won't even ask for a video, just pics, five real ones.

city_boy

Can you explain how an article claiming there was prior knowledge to the attack proves the second tower was hit by a giant ball?

I must be missing something :roll:

Manc33

City Boy wrote:

Can you explain how an article claiming there was prior knowledge to the attack proves the second tower was hit by a giant ball?

I must be missing something :roll:

I have to explain that to you?

Prior knowledge means whoever was behind the attacks could have prepared all the footage in advance. In other words the same gang of crooks that knew to bet against the airlines were obviously associated with the same gang of crooks that would have done the fake footage, warned people not to come in, made NORAD stand down, did the controlled demolition and everything else needed to pull it off that day. They just plan it over 25 years and have all the key people there ready in 2001 like Penis Cheney and Co.

Are you still missing something?

Or don't you understand that evidence of prior knowledge means everything we have been officially told about it needs to be brought into disrepute?

To you I guess not, it just somehow doesn't get brought into disrepute and you ignore it or, put it down to chance.

Don't ever become an investigator of any sort.

city_boy

It may or may not prove that some people had prior knowledge of the attacks, but the question I asked (as you are clearly missing something) was:

How does that article PROVE that the second tower was hit by a GIANT BALL??

andcp

Manc33 wrote:

Prove it. Show me the pics, I won't even ask for a video, just pics, five real ones.

I suppose you will dismiss this as cgi....
https://vimeo.com/54269169

crispybug2

For all 9/11 conspiracy theorists....

A f**king big plane slams into a building at 500 + mph

These buildings buckle at points adjacent to the impact point

What is so f**king difficult to understand about this?

Manc33

City Boy wrote:

How does that article PROVE that the second tower was hit by a GIANT BALL??

It doesn't but I never claimed it did.

The giant ball clip is simply something that needs investigating. If people had prior knowledge as well as the ball, as well as being warned... then it is all linked together, unless you're going to start saying it was the 19 Arabs but they were in on it working with the US Government and so on, nope, no one would agree to do that. If they were involved, it was as the fall guys. They would have just been told its a training exercise, a drill.

If people were getting warned not to come to the WTC just before the attacks and there were put options on the airlines (among god knows how much other stuff like molten pools at the base of the towers for weeks afterwards) then it stands to reason some giant ball going into the tower probably needs looking into as well.

Imagine a forensic scientist saying "but what does the cigarette butt have to do with the footprint" and not even checking it out.

What "proves" the ball?
The NBC video of a ball.

city_boy

Manc33 wrote:

What "proves" the ball?
The NBC video of a ball.

But the video isn't of a ball. It's a blurred video of a plane that 'looks like' a ball.
Check the video montage that Stevo posted...the clip at 1:06 is the same clip as the one you posted but with higher clarity. In this version of the video it is pretty clear its a plane (bearing in mind the distance from which it is shot). It doesn't take a great leap of imagination to understand that by lowering the resolution of the clip and the blurring of what is a tiny object on screen then the image of that object may become distorted!!

In your clip re the 'investigation' into the 'giant ball' theory, the 'investigators' put great store into an allegedly faked video where the fraudsters made an error and overshot the image of the plane as it showed the nose of the plane protruding momentarily 'past' the tower.

Again check out the 3 or 4 consecutive clips on Stevo's montage from 1:06 and from several different angles it is clear that the nose of the plane did in fact blast through the other side of the building...are you seriously suggesting all the supposed fake videos contained the same schoolboy error???

orraloon

Manc33 wrote:

Don't ever become an investigator

Good game, good game.

Now, for a bit of light relief how about the theories on the death of Princess Diana.

Did she die because:
a) she wasn't wearing a seatbelt when the car in which she was travelling crashed at high speed into a concrete wall?
b) the car crash was staged to cover up her being executed on the instructions of the 'Establishment' as They could not tolerate the mother of the future king doing the beast with 2 backs with an Egyptian, for goodness sake?
c) she was on the losing side of an inter-factional bust up within the Reptilian Overlords?

Any proof, particularly if such proof includes low res images of a bouncing ball, eagerly anticipated.

stretchy

The one dodgy video of a "ball" must show the truth but all the clear videos are obviously faked, that's conspiracy theorist logic...

orraloon wrote:

Now, for a bit of light relief how about the theories on the death of Princess Diana.

Did she die because:
a) she wasn't wearing a seatbelt when the car in which she was travelling crashed at high speed into a concrete wall?
b) the car crash was staged to cover up her being executed on the instructions of the 'Establishment' as They could not tolerate the mother of the future king doing the beast with 2 backs with an Egyptian, for goodness sake?
c) she was on the losing side of an inter-factional bust up within the Reptilian Overlords?

C - clearly

ai_1

Seriously, stop engaging with this guy. There is no point. You will neither learn nor achieve anything. It's similar but worse than arguing with someone about the existence of a deity. In this case the guy doesn't say evidence is unnecessary which is at least a consistent position. On the contrary, he asks for evidence and proofs, and when he gets them he either ignores it if he doesn't like it or rejects it as nonsense when he doesn't understand it. The breadth of what he has failed to understand in this thread is astounding. He appears to have no ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy. In his world where failure to understand something means it's not real and telling a story is as valid as providing evidence there is no room for rational discussion.
He is clearly either a troll or a delusional idiot. Probably the former; if the latter he deserves our pity but not our time. Either way, why humour him?

Manc33

Ai_1 wrote:

...he asks for evidence and proofs, and when he gets them he either ignores it if he doesn't like it or rejects it as nonsense when he doesn't understand it.

"when he gets them" lol, nearly every thing you have shown me is not proof of anything at all, like all those images of Earth from space that are all perfectly round and look like paintings.

Don't you think we should probably be inundated by now with thousands of genuine images of Earth from space if NASA gets billions of dollars a year and has been sending things into space and taking images for more than 30 years?

If those fake images on Google are enough to fool you then you probably deserve it.

You're trying to tell me what I do and don't understand? How can you be in any position to say that if you can't even grasp the Earth images thing? Shouldn't I be the one saying you don't understand?

Yes, because no one explains why NASA cannot provide any real images.

You just accept it as if thats normal. It isn't normal folks, where's the images?

imposter2.0

Manc33 wrote:

If those fake images on Google are enough to fool you then you probably deserve it.

Can you show us a pic of what earth really looks like, then? Real pic, mind, not a painting.

stretchy

So the images are fake because they "look like paintings"... Now that's rock solid evidence right there.

Someone somewhere must have a mighty fine paintbrush - http://www.wired.com/2012/01/blue-planet/

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

If those fake images on Google are enough to fool you then you probably deserve it.

bit early for you isn't it?

deserve what? let's say for arguments sake that the pictures are fake, what difference does it make to you and me?

briantrumpet

stretchy wrote:

Someone somewhere must have a mighty fine paintbrush - http://www.wired.com/2012/01/blue-planet/

The full resolution image is like earth porn on dial-up.

Kieran_Burns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIJRoj2qwsc

James May is a reptile.

chris_bass

Also, (damn it I can't resist this!) do you know how "unround" the earth is?

it is about 13 miles longer at the equator than round the poles or about 0.05%. Have you checked to see if those images show that level of difference?

ai_1

Manc33 wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

...he asks for evidence and proofs, and when he gets them he either ignores it if he doesn't like it or rejects it as nonsense when he doesn't understand it.

"when he gets them" lol, nearly every thing you have shown me is not proof of anything at all, like all those images of Earth from space that are all perfectly round and look like paintings....

See he just confirmed exactly what I was saying and was good enough to quote me saying it alongside for ease of reference!
He said all he wanted was 5 pictures of earth from space. He got 5+ pictures of earth from space. He rejects them as nonsense on the basis that they are clearly fakes but doesn't explain why he thinks they're fakes.

The arguments go a little like this:

A: We never went to space, if we did there'd be photos/videos. There's HD images of everything these days. Show me a photo and I'll believe you.
B: Here's a high quality photo.
A: That's a fake. It can't be real because we never went to space. Also the earth looks too round.
B: The earth IS round.
A: No it's not. Your theories and measurements don't prove anything. Show me a picture and I'll believe you.
B: Here's that high quality photo and any number of others.
A: That's a fake. It can't be real because we never went to space and the earth isn't round. You can't trust pictures.

In other news, the world trade centre towers weren't destroyed by planes. It was explosives in the towers, no it was cigar shaped missiles, no it was big flying balls, here's a picture....damn....There's no such thing as gravity!

orraloon

Kieran_Burns wrote:

James May is a reptile.

Oh yes, definitely. Look closely enough at the video, best to make it a bit fuzzy as well, and you can see his forked tongue.