Do you think the Official Conspiracy Theorists like tinfoil?

[KRCummings]

No need.You shills are dumb as all fuck. Should be obvious.






Are you trying to complain about your poor pay as a shill? You get what you paid for. Poor pay = poor shills.

We keep trying to tell you, it's not about the pay, it's the benefits. You simply can't beat all federal holidays, 3 weeks paid vacation a year and full medical and dental.

 

[NothingHitMe]

I've always wondered if crazy people know they are crazy. Now I know the answer.

You realised that everyone thought you were crazy when you saw the votes at the top of page. But you're not PAID to think, shill. Go back to your "orientation meeting notes" next Wednesday or contact your supervising shill.

 

[breakwall]

I asked about the existence of 85 CCTVs.

Typical shill, you only posted what you found and pretended it answered the entire point. It didn't, LOL

you must have misread my response.

Here, let me hold your hand and let you read it again.

I know that there was one.

Here is the source:

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/03/0...ures/index.html from CNN.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4987716.stm from the BBC

...beyond that, I can only speculate.

Okay, let's go over this one more time. Now, I'll go slowly and use small words so you can understand.

I never made the claim that there were 85 cctvs, YOU did. I asked you to prove that there were 85 CCTVs, but instead of answering me with a link to indicate where you came up with that number, you asked me to prove that there weren't.

Now, read this very carefully: I can only prove that there was ONE CCTV pointed at the Pentagon. And I have done that.

Now, I'd like you to clarify where you came up with the claim that there were 85 close-captioned television cameras pointing in the direction of the Pentagon crash site.

Thank you.

 

[NothingHitMe]

you must have misread my response.

No, you avoided the point I was making. (a typical shill tactic)

85 CCTVs.

Video footage from 85 CCTVs.

Where is the video footage from 85 CCTVs clearly showing a passenger jet hitting the Pentagon - but you can't show that they do. Therefore you can't show that any passenger jet hit the Pentagon.

 

[breakwall]

No, you avoided the point I was making. (a typical shill tactic)

85 CCTVs.

Video footage from 85 CCTVs.

Where is the video footage from 85 CCTVs clearly showing a passenger jet hitting the Pentagon - but you can't show that they do. Therefore you can't show that any passenger jet hit the Pentagon.

Tactic: deflection.

Reason: You don't have a link that indicates the number of cameras that were pointing at the Pentagon that day.

Conclusion: You're a joke.

And really, this was a pretty simple task.

any google search would have pulled up a number of answers.

 

[NothingHitMe]

Reason: You don't have a link that indicates the number of cameras that were pointing at the Pentagon that day.

Can you show there is ONLY ONE CCTV on the whole of the Pentagon aimed in that direction?

 

[phrodeau]

Can you show there is ONLY ONE CCTV on the whole of the Pentagon aimed in that direction?

There is at least one, more than zero.

How many do your needs require?

 

[breakwall]

Can you show there is ONLY ONE CCTV on the whole of the Pentagon aimed in that direction?

Oh boy.

You're not really all that good at this are you.

 

[NothingHitMe]

Oh boy.

You're not really all that good at this are you.

Oh boy.

You're not really all that good at this are you.

Show the plane that hit the pentagon.

 

[NothingHitMe]

There is at least one, more than zero.

How many do your needs require?

Show the plane that hit the pentagon

 

[CurlyMess]

Because the "witnesses" at the WTC buildings were witnesses to loud noises...not explosive charges.

Forgive me for saying so, but . . .

THAT IS SO MUCH BULL AS AN EXCUSE!

 

[bg23]

i think he's hurt because i suggested he go eat his own eyeballs.

i don't know why. it was a great plan.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Switching Alts.

Whatta plan to gain credibility...

 

[hobbit.]

You Better Shape Up
'Cuz I need a Shrill
(need a shrill)
And My Heart Is Set On YEW

*yes it is yes it is ohgoddamn yes it is

it was worth reading this thread just for that one song. And a mention of that noble tree, the Yew,Taxus Baccata. A fine tree!

 

[NothingHitMe]

Show the plane that hit the pentagon.

Come on tinfoil hat wearers, you can do this, can't you?

There's a million dollar prize if you prove the WTC buildings weren't taken down by controlled demolitions too. Don't forget that.

Why won't you take the challenge?

 

[Gringao]

Then show the passenger manifests with the Arab names on them.



Not time or date stamp = not real security video of the event. Dismissed.

Right as usual, nutball:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Atta_in_airport.jpg

That's Atta and al-Omari. You are dismissed. Or perhaps the font of the time/date stamp doesn't meet your exacting requirements?

Cellphones can't make calls from passenger aircraft from the 5-6 miles up, while the plane is flying at 500mph. Expert opinion and scientific studies agrees with this, as has been cited repeatedly. That brings into the question the airfone calls, which could be dismissed since there are no records of them, and it is already widely known that the cellphone calls were faked.

"Known" by whom? The loved ones that were called?

It's unwinnable because the WTC collapses were controlled demolitions. It's also impossible to simulate the collapses otherwise. FEA also could not simulate those collapses without them being controlled demolitions. NIST could not simulate those collapses without them being controlled demolitions.

Can you prove that they were not controlled demolitions when nobody else can?

Thank you for making my point for me. You are asking to prove a negative, a logical impossibility, precisely in the manner the "contest" does. As I've said, I have $10 million for anyone who can prove that space monkeys in the moon did not bring down the towers with gravity rays. No one has refuted my contention, so I'm absolutely certain that it's true...right?

Explain the difference exactly and in detail, as you see it.

Many things can cause sharp, loud sounds as well as seemingly explosive releases of physical energy. When a tall building collapses, there is tremendous energy released as it falls. That energy snaps steel I-beams, crumbles reinforced concrete. These do not occur without a violent event that creates a great deal of noise as well as localized, intense releases of energy.

People saw and heard these members give way: loud, dramatic and explosive. To say that they were caused by explosives is conclusory, not dispositive.

Contrast this with what the witnesses of the Pentagon saw, heard and felt on 9-11. Not only did they witness the explosion, fire and destruction that those around the WTC experienced, they also saw, heard and felt the proximate cause of those phenomena, i.e. the American Airlines 757 that plowed into the Pentagon. There is no speculation as to the cause of the cataclysmic events at that location, where all you have at the WTC in support of your addled view is speculation.

 

[Gringao]

Name a guided missile with a big enough warhead to do the damage we saw in the Pentagon that leaves a smoke trail.

A passenger jet that injests light poles and generators through its engine will leave a smoke trail, yes.

I can't answer the question about the CCTV's. We they all trained (actually pointing at) the area? We they all actually on at that precise second? Would they actually be capable of capturing the incident? I suspect if you really investigate every one of them, instead of just throwing out "85 cameras", the answer would surprise you.

One of the CCTVs did catch the nose of the jet as it entered the field of view. The problem is that the frame rate of security cameras isn't fast enough to capture multiple pictures of an object flying at 500 mph.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

One of the CCTVs did catch the nose of the jet as it entered the field of view. The problem is that the frame rate of security cameras isn't fast enough to capture multiple pictures of an object flying at 500 mph.

I've been waiting for this fact to be brought up. Security cameras normally don't record real-time like on television. The video is compressed by adjusting the frame rate to make the medium last as long as possible. You can have framerates anywhere from 1 frame every 2 seconds to 30 frames per second if you're lucky. Something travelling at 500 MPH may not show up at all if the framerate is slow..

 

[NothingHitMe]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Atta_in_airport.jpg

That's Atta and al-Omari.

So you claim. Where's the passport photo and/or other ID photo to compare the faces of the men alleged to be them, and their ID photos?

 

[phrodeau]

So you claim. Where's the passport photo and/or other ID photo to compare the faces of the men alleged to be them, and their ID photos?

Oh, are their noses the wrong shape?

 

[NothingHitMe]

That energy snaps steel I-beams, .

Show me some "snapped" steel beams from other building collapses which match those of the WTC steel beams.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

So you claim. Where's the passport photo and/or other ID photo to compare the faces of the men alleged to be them, and their ID photos?

 

[NothingHitMe]

Oh, are their noses the wrong shape?

.Where's the passport photo and/or other ID photo to compare the faces of the men alleged to be them, and their ID photos?

You can do this, or you can't.

If you can't, then those aren't them. They could be anybody.


The USA government got caught lying in this way before

The real Hanni Majour
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa77/hanjour1.jpg

The guy that the US government tried to claim was him
http://www.nynewsday.com/media/photo/2004-07/13512460.jpg
I guess he must've had a head transplant. Not a very convincing image from a security camera either; there's no date or time. Every security camera image that I've ever seen had a date and time stamp.

 

[NothingHitMe]

Security cameras normally don't record real-time like on television. .

You are NOT an expert.

You're a shill trying the stupid storytelling game again.

Next time cite a source, link, and quoted expert on the subject - because nobody cares a damn about your shill opinion

 

[NothingHitMe]

Thank you for making my point for me. You are asking to prove a negative, a logical impossibility, precisely in the manner the "contest" does. .

No, I'm not. I'm asking you to back your lies.

If you can't prove the WTC buildings didn't go down due to a controlled demolition, then you can't prove the Official Conspiracy Thesis for the simple reason that NOBODY, not NIST, not MIT and EAGAR and NOVA has been able to simulate the collapse of the buildings in the way that you shills claim that they went down.