lord_casek Posted December 12, 2007 Author Share Posted December 12, 2007 dunno, man, i do cgi for a hobby. i've worked with compositing before. and i was watching tv as it happened on september 11th. i'm pretty sure what i saw was really happening. the analysis on the video was kinda odd. i couldn't watch all of it because i can't stand muffled voices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 well casek, check it out with an open mind, forget what others say. the simple fact that the video will talk about fake planes totally cancels out the chance to look at it, for some people. but dont let that happen to you like it happens to theo. youll see some things do not add up. flight 175's speed: did you know according to frames and distance, different institutions like fema and the british royal airforce were able to determine the speed of flight 175? different results, but average is around 575mph. now, again a video, please im not trying to bug you man, just watch it(6 minutes). some dude name jeff calls boeing about the maximum speed at 700ft altitude, which is the altitude of the second impact. ask any pilot, they will tell you commertial planes cant go that fast at low altitudes because the air's density doesnt let it do it. http://youtube.com/watch?v=xjgLwOT2zuc listen to the video, examine, pause and read if you need to. this is undebunkable stuff, you cant make up fake science like with the rest of other facts. yumone: come on man. come on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Regardless to where you and Juan differ, or where I and Juan differ. It really doesn't mean anything. Why? Because everyone who thinks that 9/11 was an inside job gets looped into one group. When clearly there are a lot of people that think a lot of different things. This in turn hurts the "movement" at whole. But hey, maybe if the real information was let out, we wouldn't have all of these problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 12, 2007 Author Share Posted December 12, 2007 juan, i'll watch in a minute and let you knwo what i think. ILOTSMYBRAIN: yeah, that's very true. i've had people try and lump me in with the same idiots that think ufo's used a laser beam to blow that shit up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 12, 2007 Author Share Posted December 12, 2007 juan, i've heard such phone calls before. calls to top officials who just hang up after they can't answer a question. there are several here http://pilotsfor911truth.org/index.html rather than source a young college kid (jeff), i would go straight to the people who would really know...pilots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 casek forget who is the caller or who "officially" knows and does not, like the deniers do, still this is not an attack towards you my friend, im just giving examples. i was not sourcing a young college kid. i was showing you a video where he happens to talk in it. concentrate in the things covered. not WHO covered. we are talking about a plane like a Boeing 767 going at aprox 575mph at 700ft ! that is not possible in this world. i dont know in what world is that possible, but me and you do not live in that world. get back at me , have some patience with this, this is not a competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
After School Special Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Larry Silverstein did say PULL, but explained that he meant pull out the firefighters. So he did not admit anything. For what its worth, "pull" is also not a demolition term. If anyone says otherwise, they are lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 yall must have accepted 911 was a deception operation/inside job. because im not hearing debunkings. and that is very weird of you all. no need to say sorries. we all make mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanfullofretards Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 yall must have accepted 911 was a deception operation/inside job. because im not hearing debunkings. and that is very weird of you all. I think a lot of the rational people who visit this thread are just tired of trying to beat logic into your guys' heads. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 yall must have accepted 911 was a deception operation/inside job. because im not hearing debunkings. and that is very weird of you all. no need to say sorries. we all make mistakes. evyerthing you've talked about has been debunked over and over. why repeat it again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 Just when I thought Juan couldn't get more ridiculous. Dude, you obviously don't know anyone who was in NYC the day of the attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecoldmidwest Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 I didn't read the whole thread but to those who say that it wasn't an inside job, how do you explain wtc 7? Also, has anyone seen loose change final cut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 I didn't read the whole thread but to those who say that it wasn't an inside job, how do you explain wtc 7? "I didn't read the whole thread" read the thread and you should find it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 everything been debunked? where is the fight 175 speed debunking? you can concentrate on that right? you just go ahead and say that new york was full of people that day. thats what you put your mind into. not the facts. thank you for showing me how unwilling to accept you all are. have a nice miserable life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 you're an extremely unintelligent young man Juan go and read a book instead of just clicking on conspiracy theory websites created by equally unintelligent people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 for those who do know 911 is an inside job. i could share the best videos about tv and video fakery on 911. still, if you decide to go at it yourself, youll have lots to discover. everything will be worth it. and know that this is what will not be able to debunk or/and the best weapon for 911 truth. everything else will be a waste of time because althought some of us by just LOOKING at wtc7 can have a clear idea of what happened there, you will always run into these souls lost in their fear talking all conspiracy nutty to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 yumone: you cant bring anything to the table other than telling me that im unintelligent and that i should read books. come back with something better, and if you cant prove me wrong at least be quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 15, 2007 Author Share Posted December 15, 2007 this is an open discussion, i'd like to see less bickering and bullshit and more information and debates. we are all adults, right? we need to start acting as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanfullofretards Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 15, 2007 Author Share Posted December 15, 2007 EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE scroll back and find the last few articles i've posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Police Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 the world trade centers collapsed because they were fucking hit by planes. end of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 a witty saying proves nothing, vanfullofretards. the fun police: yeah sure, plane hit tower, end of story. if the media said so, then it should be right, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 15, 2007 Author Share Posted December 15, 2007 the world trade centers collapsed because they were fucking hit by planes. end of story. 7 wasn't hit by a plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 7 wasn't hit by a plane. no it was hit by debris that took out a 5 story chunk from its corner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 I don;t understand why you guys make this building 7 argument anyway? let's jsut say that it was rigged with explosives for the sake of argument. what is the point of this? especially as it would leave such a massive clue pointing towards a 9/11 conspiracy with seemingly no advantage to the conspirators Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Police Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 ok... two buildings were hit by planes, this is fact you can't debunk the video. whether or not the basement was packed with explosives or 7 was hit by a missile will forever be debated... point being shit went down and is done now. but even if you were to find hard conclusive evidence of what caused this it wouldn't do shit. just understand that both ends of this line end in the same place, you're running in circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Police Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 it's not what you say, but how you say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 15, 2007 Author Share Posted December 15, 2007 I don;t understand why you guys make this building 7 argument anyway? let's jsut say that it was rigged with explosives for the sake of argument. what is the point of this? especially as it would leave such a massive clue pointing towards a 9/11 conspiracy with seemingly no advantage to the conspirators it was barely damaged. not enough to make it collapse. the new loose change has some never before seen video that proves this. alot of people point to another building and say it was 7, in fact, it was not. it was an adjacent building in the complex. i can upload it if you would like to watch. forgot to answer a question someone had: if 7 was blown up, why? there were intelligence offices all over 7. do a search and see what was housed there. if it was an inside job, the proof would most likely be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 hahaha so you think to destroy some paper trail of evidence for a conspiracy they concluded that the least conspicuous way to do it was to blow up an entire building right next to where the event took place? nice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 15, 2007 Author Share Posted December 15, 2007 hahaha so you think to destroy some paper trail of evidence for a conspiracy they concluded that the least conspicuous way to do it was to blow up an entire building right next to where the event took place? nice... well, i think when they went in to wire the trade centers (1 and 2, respectively) that they just went ahead and wired 3. i think that possibly flight 97 was meant to have gone in and taken it out, but when the general that called out the plane to shoot down 97 (he disobeyed big time) they had to go ahead and take it out since nothing hit it. and yes, 97 was shot down. http://files.filefront.com/1853807rar/;9258588;/fileinfo.html final cut ^ watch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.