Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

9/11 media happenings

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've cracked it. Conspiracy fans say that it was Bush who made 9/11 happen to provide an excuse to go to war and to increase his popularity.

But on the day, Bush came over as a useless, bumbling oaf, seemingly frozen by events and clearly incompetent at handling a major crisis.

But who was the person who managed to impress the American public by visiting Ground Zero no less than four times on 9/11, taking control of the situation, touring hospitals and making vital decisions on the fly?

Yes, that's right, Rudy Giullana. And who's running for president right now? That's right, Rudy Giullana.

Therefore, Rudy Giullana must have been the man controlling the holographic missile-firing planes, Rudy Giullana must have been the man setting off the invisible explosives and Rudy Giullana must have been the man slaughtering all the passengers in a secret location. How else would bhe have been able to react so quickly?

Please remember that I said this first.
 
TheArchitect said:
Was WTC7 his secret bunker then? Was that where he hid the incriminating evidence before he secretly disposed of it?

What, like, Hitler's Bunker??

The fascist, down with him!! (but not before I've won me bet)

:mad: :mad: into infinity etc..
 
Well, the BBC2 programme was fun!

Favourite moment? It's just got to be the explanation for how debris from Flight 93 (alleged to be substantial bits of the plane, actually just bits of paper and material blown on the wind according to the Mayor) managed to end up in Indian Springs, some 6.1 miles from Shanksville.

Aparently the old routefinder system comfirms the distance as 6.1 miles ... unfortunately it takes a very long way round by road as there is no direct route ... which is a pity ... because they're only just over a mile apart ... :D

As the animated map coloured in the route it was a true LOL moment! :D
 
detective-boy said:
Well, the BBC2 programme was fun!

Favourite moment? It's just got to be the explanation for how debris from Flight 93 (alleged to be substantial bits of the plane, actually just bits of paper and material blown on the wind according to the Mayor) managed to end up in Indian Springs, some 6.1 miles from Shanksville.

Aparently the old routefinder system comfirms the distance as 6.1 miles ... unfortunately it takes a very long way round by road as there is no direct route ... which is a pity ... because they're only just over a mile apart ... :D

As the animated map coloured in the route it was a true LOL moment! :D

Likewise my favourite. It was just so typical of the crap "facts" that the woowoos always produce. :p

It was a very good piece of film making. The woowoos were given plenty of rope, and boy did they hang themselves.

I mean, imagine not knowing what a similie is?! :rolleyes:
 
TheArchitect said:
I mean, imagine not knowing what a similie is?! :rolleyes:
ever worse, imagine not knowing how to spell it! :p

It was a pretty bad programme. The Indiana Lake was the only thing new it had to contribute. I didn't watch all of it because I wanted to throw things at the screen. Half of it consisted of people waffling on about the mentality for being a 'conspiracy theorist'... give us a break. Official explanations were taken as gospel - 'The aircraft took off in the wrong direction' - well you could hardly make something like that up, yet it was narrated as a perfectly good reason why none of the four hijacked aircraft were intercepted. The lie 'no-one could have foreseen using hijacked aircraft as weapons' was lapped up and then later the programme presented the 'Lone Gunmen' episode where Hollywood had come up with exactly that! Some Pentagon debris was shown and claimed to be 'identifiable' yet the programme forgot to mention that none of it had been identified. The exit hole for the Pentagon was not shown at all (sixth wall along). They ridiculed the Cleveland Airport theory by presenting Delta 89 but omitted to mention that the theory is that BOTH Delta 89 and Flight 93 landed there. The worst offence was taking the 4000 Jews not turning up to work nonsense as if it's taken seriously by any self-respecting faction of the 9/11 Truth Movement. And then of course making the emotional appeal about the distress that 9/11 Truth has on the families of the bereaved, not noting that they are helping driving the movement (nothing I saw about the Jersey Girls or William Rodriguez).

:rolleyes:
 
Jazzz said:
I didn't watch all of it because I wanted to throw things at the screen.
And that sums up your quasi-religious, head-in-the-sand, I want to belieeeeeve faith-based approach to 9/11.

You didn't like what was being said so you turned it off - yet these were the people who were giving you direct answers to the 'questions' you've been asking.

But hey! Why listen to the people who were actually there when you can get selectively quoted second-hand bullshit on dodgy websites peddled by DVD-shifting, ego-driven conspiraloons instead, eh?
 
Interesting that the programme concluded there had been a coverup after the event, to hide incompetence or possible negligent missed opportunities.
Also the Washington guy saying how evidence has been witheld about for this purpose.
 
Jazzz said:
The worst offence was taking the 4000 Jews not turning up to work nonsense as if it's taken seriously by any self-respecting faction of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Better tell fela fan that because he was going on about all these people who supposedly didn't show up for work only a week ago!
 
EddyBlack said:
Interesting that the programme concluded there had been a coverup after the event, to hide incompetence or possible negligent missed opportunities.
That's been my belief all along, and this program confirmed it.
 
It's nice to see the good old BBC using a strawman to side step the riches gained by the people that sigend and proposed a 'new pearl harbour'.
 
How were they setting up a straw man? You haven't got to look further than this thread for people who fervently believe all that conspiracy stuff.
 
editor said:
But who was the person who managed to impress the American public by visiting Ground Zero no less than four times on 9/11, taking control of the situation, touring hospitals and making vital decisions on the fly?

Yes, that's right, Rudy Giullana. And who's running for president right now? That's right, Rudy Giullana.

Therefore, Rudy Giullana must have been the man controlling the holographic missile-firing planes, Rudy Giullana must have been the man setting off the invisible explosives and Rudy Giullana must have been the man slaughtering all the passengers in a secret location. How else would bhe have been able to react so quickly?

Please remember that I said this first.
Oh you must mean Rudolph (Rudy) Guiliani? :p
 
Jazzz said:
how old are you exactly?

37.

And it's a bit rich coming from the man who made up a statistic (600%!), lied about the extent of fires, and bolloxed up his own structural calculations all whilst accusing everyone else of being an idiot. :rolleyes:
 
DrRingDing said:
It's nice to see the good old BBC using a strawman to side step the riches gained by the people that sigend and proposed a 'new pearl harbour'.
Please explain this, with your comments preferably backed by a few credible sources.

Thanks.
 
Yossarian said:
How were they setting up a straw man?

By basically finding the most outragous ideas presented by people that could easily be ripped apart and derided but carefully avoided the PNAC.
 
A wise man once said:
Bob_the_lost said:
Jazzz said:
eh? WTC7 looked like an absolutely text-book building implosion. And the only thing that looked unlike a controlled demolition of WTCs 1&2 was that it came down from the impact floors downwards, which is no objection because demolition companies could very easily do that if needed.
NO IT DIDN'T YOU TIT.

It looked nothing like a text book implosion. I've pointed this out repeatedly, don't you remember?

WTC 1&2 look nothing like CDs, again this has been covered numerous times, do you not remember them either?
And an intellecutal coward said:
 
TheArchitect said:
37.

And it's a bit rich coming from the man who made up a statistic (600%!), lied about the extent of fires, and bolloxed up his own structural calculations all whilst accusing everyone else of being an idiot. :rolleyes:
I didn't 'make up' 600% - you found it quoted yourself. My calculations were fine - indeed MikeMcc has conceded that I was entirely right about compression failures. Yours on the other hand were a load of tosh... remember your DCR figures? You never had the maturity to concede you didn't understand them and I did.
 
Jazzz said:
Oh you must mean Rudolph (Rudy) Guiliani? :p
Jazzz: why would a pedantic self proclaimed 'truth seeker' like you turn off a well-sourced documentary that was full of first hand interviews and eye witness accounts that are absolutely central to your claims?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom