Originally Posted by Metrolike:
Like I said, I don't care what his goal is, I saw his evidence and chose to believe it. I suggest you do the same (watching it, that is). As for the hole in the conspiracy... I don't see one. The whole thing is based around "the government" killing 5000 people, 90 more passangers...
So, the plane landed in Cleveland. The government then covertly took all the people off the plane and killed them? Is that the theory?
I've only seen the first edition, FYI.
Originally Posted by Metrolike:
I've answered some of your questions, it's your turn to answer some of the video's questions. Whenever you get it working that is, if ever. It still works for me. Weird.
What questions? Ask me a specific one, and I'll do my best to answer. [Reply]
Originally Posted by journeyscarab:
I watched the video and I drew my conclusions. My conclusion is that any a*hole with too much time on their hands and a computer can cause a bunch of tinfoil hat wearers to go nuts and accept stupid premises without a shred of evidence of what the goal of the conspircy was to begin with!
How many days until Football starts again? Maybe you all need to step away from the PC and get some fresh air.
You're FOS. You didn't watch the video, 60% of what they say is backed up by various credible media outlets, 25% is backed up by interviews. 15% is just fluff to make their case better. [Reply]
I wanna know how da devil Bush convinced Osama to have his boys fly planes into the WTC in this perfectly coordinated assault… knowing that after this attack he and his followers would be hunted down. Why would he do this?
Also did he also make it to Cleveland too… and now has a 2nd life running a 7/11 in Detroit… and only shoots his videos in the back of the store room upon request from da devil Bush. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Metrolike:
But when the firemen say they heard multiple explosions, it makes you wonder. When they have live news feeds (FOX News, CNN, etc) describing secondary explosions, it makes you wonder.
There, see if you’d described some of this too me we’d have been able to discuss it.
Secondaries, this could be explained several different ways. At least one is fuel leaking from the plane finding pockets that temporarily shield it from the heat of the fire and only ignited after that heat causes it to boil into a gaseous rather than liquid form. It’s the same principle as “vapor lock”, where gas boils in a vehicles fuel lines then causes the engine to die once the vapor hits the carburetor float bowl since it wasn’t designed to meter vapor.
Another is the rupturing of steam lines for the heating system, possibly even the natural gas lines depending on how the building was heated.
Small secondaries aren’t unusual even for a home fire that doesn’t contain explosives.
Originally Posted by Metrolike:
The whole Pentagon thing is obvioulsy f*cked up, no way around it. The steel melting designed to withstand 2200 degrees melting at 1800 is f*cked up. There are just so many things that don't fit, it's mindboggling as well as sickening.
Something melting at 1800 degrees when it’s designed to melt at 2200 is ‘bout a 20% tolerance. I don’t know enough ‘bout this metal to say that’s within manufacture specs, but I wouldn’t necessarily consider it unusual. Maybe we have someone more knowledgeable than me in this area that could comment. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Donger:
So, the plane landed in Cleveland. The government then covertly took all the people off the plane and killed them? Is that the theory?
How about this... How about you give me a theory on why the news reported Flight 93 landing.
I don't know what happened to the people. I just know that a news outlet reported Flight 93 had landed, and I'd like to know why. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Metrolike:
You're FOS. You didn't watch the video, 60% of what they say is backed up by various credible media outlets, 25% is backed up by interviews. 15% is just fluff to make their case better.
No...You are FOS. I did waste time watching both videos. I could put together a video refuting every detail in the videos. It's crap. And unless you can provide undeniable proof of that the FINAL GOAL of all this fantasy was supposed to have been - then you need to take a breath and join the rest of us in this reality. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Metrolike:
Agh, dude, just watch the movie. There are so many, all the information we were provided is so full of inconsistancies.
I swear, you won't regret watching it.
I did and you should be ashamed to call yourself an American and find any shred of reality in that video. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Lattimer:
I should post that 2 hour video of how Hillary killed Vince Foster with a spoon and a coffee pot. It's riveting.
It's probably more credible than this, at least.
What a friggin' hoot.....yeah, the Federal Government of the United States conspired to kill 2000 of it's own citizens, and in the process put a big dent in an all ready vulnerable economy and launch an expensive and difficult war on terrorism. Sounds like a great idea to me! :-)
Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter:
It's probably more credible than this, at least.
What a friggin' hoot.....yeah, the Federal Government of the United States conspired to kill 2000 of it's own citizens, and in the process put a big dent in an all ready vulnerable economy and launch an expensive and difficult war on terrorism. Sounds like a great idea to me! :-)
Originally Posted by Radar Chief:
There, see if you’d described some of this too me we’d have been able to discuss it.
Secondaries, this could be explained several different ways. At least one is fuel leaking from the plane finding pockets that temporarily shield it from the heat of the fire and only ignited after that heat causes it to boil into a gaseous rather than liquid form. It’s the same principle as “vapor lock”, where gas boils in a vehicles fuel lines then causes the engine to die once the vapor hits the carburetor float bowl since it wasn’t designed to meter vapor.
Another is the rupturing of steam lines for the heating system, possibly even the natural gas lines depending on how the building was heated.
Small secondaries aren’t unusual even for a home fire that doesn’t contain explosives.
Something melting at 1800 degrees when it’s designed to melt at 2200 is ‘bout a 20% tolerance. I don’t know enough ‘bout this metal to say that’s within manufacture specs, but I wouldn’t necessarily consider it unusual. Maybe we have someone more knowledgeable than me in this area that could comment.
Wait, shouldn't the fuel ignite upon contact? How come skyscrapers that weren't built to withstand anything close to what WCC buildings were designed to withstand, can stay ablaze for 6 days without collapsing, yet the tower that got hit SECOND collapsed in 56 minutes, before the tower that got hit first did.
A high ranking employee of the steel making company was quoted as saying that the particular grade of steel can withstand anything less than 2200 degrees fahrenheit. [Reply]
