9/11 The Conspiracy Files
- Thread starter Maggot
- Start date
- Status
ironic then that alex jones plays that exact clip in his show! Then they nag on about planted evidence in the form of bandanas.Cid said:
In the end the interview is fairly ridiculous because Jones just cannot see a different point of view nor seem to understand how anyone can arrive at a difference perspective. He resorts to his trademark loud voice complaining that the 'debunkers' got mroe airtime than he and his friends.
pinkychukkles
Feed Your Head
He's the radio host that resembles Bill Hicks in the BBC documentary 
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
pinkychukkles said:He's the radio host that resembles Bill Hicks in the BBC documentary
Interesting fact Hicks and Jones were mates, which explains how all the conspiracy theorists stuff wormed its way into Hicks work.
I'd like to think Hicks would have distanced himself from this barmy nonsense have Jones exposed himself as a right wing nut. Jones btw doesn't think global warming is happening, it's the sun heating up.
Cid
Proper break this time
RaverDrew said:Am I the only one that thinks the real conspiracy is that alex Jones is supposedly only 32 years old ?
He already looked much older than that about 6-7 yrs ago when I first saw him.
33 now according to wiki... Can't be true.
I thought you bought into a lot of his 'theories' Drew?
Cid said:
I'm certainly interested in some of the stuff he has to say, although he has always been a bit too pastor/preacher showman style for me. I've always entertained the notion that it's possible that he is a disinformation agent, and there doesn't seem to be too much about his background on the net.
Overall I think he is a positive voice, but to be taken with rather a large pinch of salt.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Apart from on Kennedy - would be interesting to see what he'd have to say when presented with the evidence of the seating arrangement in the car which meant that one of his more famous skits on it - LHO having to lean out of the window and the bullet having to swerve - was an absolute pile of old bollocks.
Nah, he'd have focussed on the oil and WMD lies over Iraq...well that's what I keep telling myself to keep the memory of Bill good and pure...
Nah, he'd have focussed on the oil and WMD lies over Iraq...well that's what I keep telling myself to keep the memory of Bill good and pure...
Hi Cid,Cid said:
yes I appreciate your point. I don't consider this a proven theory by any means. But I do consider it a theory. I present it here to really show that the 'debunking' performed by the BBC documentary was devoid of substance - making out that the theory proponents were making out that one plane landed at Cleveland and that this is explained by the landing of Delta 89.
But to address your point, the theory states that the aircraft landed at different times at different ends of the runway, so one wouldn't expect anyone to see the two planes together. As for the lack of testimonies from airport staff, well we don't have any reports from the check-in staff or other airport workers about parties of muslims they encountered on the day, yet that hasn't stopped people believing that the hijackers boarded the planes. The airport staff also will be forbidden to talk to the press (remember also the interview tape which FAA guys made which was then shredded into little pieces).
It's the reports made as early as possible which are particularly interesting, yes they may be erroneous, but also because if the 'bigger picture' is not considered reliable, then it's the early reports that will contain the actual truth of what happened. Once the story of what was meant to have happened appears, recollections will likely adapt to that and any conflicting reports get dropped (pretty much the same as you said but from another perspective).
Lisarocket
In bed with me dinner
Jazzz said:
Yeah. Handy that the picture was still showing too...considering that most of the crash debris disintergrated on impact
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Dubversion said:Jazz crops up sometimes, being all wacky with a some sort of puppet on his arm
Tell me there are photos. Please let there be photos. At least tell me what the puppet is?
I did not think it was possible to have my opinion of Jazzz to plum to greater depths, but hey, he never fails to surprise me.
Jazzz said:
Yeah you know lots of paperwork, seats, baggage, and personal effects survived all four crashes? And you know you remember Cory Liddle? NY Yankees Baseball Star who's plane crashed in NY in 2006? How did they identify him? They found his passport at the crash site.
But hey lets fixatate on how something seems implausible, without looking at how it is plausible.
editor
hiraethified
Unlike most of the stinking lies and unpleasant fantasy bullshit to peddle here daily, it's not unprecedented for a passport to survive an air crash:Jazzz said:
Any chance of you finally answering my questions now please, or do you intend to continue showcasing your capacity for dishonesty?
editor
hiraethified
Here's another example of a passport surviving a crash.
Seeing as I'm troubling myself to bother with Jazzz's "points", perhaps he will finally now give me some examples of huge, occupied skyscrapers being brought down by invisibly wired explosives? Or explain exactly where these remarkable invisible explosives were hidden in the WTC?
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Jazzz, for someone who claims to have watched the impact of the planes on the WTC many times, you seem to have missed the sight of the cockpit emerging relatively unscathed from the other side of the tower before the fuel went up in flames, and as it did you can clearly see debris shower down to earth that would undoubtedly have been the contents of the cockpit.
Now if the hijacker was flying the plane he'd have been carrying his passport, and would have been thrown to the front of the aircraft in the first impact with the tower, and may have emerged with the nose out of the other side before the fuel ignited.
That of course is a more plausable explanation than anything you have ever muttered on this topic, ever.
The other possibility is that some random twat told the news crews that they'd found an Arab passport just to make a story, after all, you've done the same kind of thing here...
Now if the hijacker was flying the plane he'd have been carrying his passport, and would have been thrown to the front of the aircraft in the first impact with the tower, and may have emerged with the nose out of the other side before the fuel ignited.
That of course is a more plausable explanation than anything you have ever muttered on this topic, ever.
The other possibility is that some random twat told the news crews that they'd found an Arab passport just to make a story, after all, you've done the same kind of thing here...
DexterTCN
Troy and Abed in the morning
Not wishing to be tarred with the CT brush, (it's the Urban version of racism imo,) but you're not really comparing those diddy little planes to the WTC ones and explosions as an order of magnitude are you?editor said:
It's not only the CTists who get delusional, imo.
Cid
Proper break this time
Lisarocket said:Yeah. Handy that the picture was still showing too...considering that most of the crash debris disintergrated on impact
Because most of that crash debris was exposed to to the full impact force... Much of that force is going to be absorbed by the frame of the plane, then the seats, people etc. A document like a passport can quite easily survive that kind of impact, paper is pretty strong anyway. As to heat, well anyone who's ever made a bonfire can tell you that paper is remarkably resistant in some ways, and passports are laminated.
dogmatique
merde alors
Do any of you know how many mounds of pieces and parts of personal belongings were found at the crash site? Tonnes? Or just the one passport you seem so incredulous that survived.
Needless to say the socks, pants, clothes, suitcases, books, washbags etc don't merit the same attention, but nevertheless they were there. At the crash site. As they are with any other plane crash.
Not that you'd be willing to accept that, but hey.
I bet the parents of the couple of people I knew who died in the WTC would love to find some of their remains, but in their case, nothing.
But I suppose you'd say that they probably weren't there, are in hiding, or Jewish. Pff.
Before you ask, a friend of mine worked for Risk, the UK company that was holding a conference on the top floor of tower one that day. 16 dead.
Needless to say the socks, pants, clothes, suitcases, books, washbags etc don't merit the same attention, but nevertheless they were there. At the crash site. As they are with any other plane crash.
Not that you'd be willing to accept that, but hey.
I bet the parents of the couple of people I knew who died in the WTC would love to find some of their remains, but in their case, nothing.
But I suppose you'd say that they probably weren't there, are in hiding, or Jewish. Pff.
Before you ask, a friend of mine worked for Risk, the UK company that was holding a conference on the top floor of tower one that day. 16 dead.
Cid
Proper break this time
Yep, what dogmatique said - I expect other passports were recovered but it's just not something the media would report on. This is where CTs really piss me off, half of them are based entirely on media discrepancies which is absolutely ludicrous since it's the media's job to offer soundbite versions rather than full, detailed reports. And we all know how innacurate the media can be sometimes.
DexterTCN
Troy and Abed in the morning
My line of reasoning is fine thanks.Cid said:
Saying that the destructive qualities of a little plane like this
are to be used to explain explosions and damage caused by jets that destroyed two massive buildings.......it's just as bad as what the CTists say...except because it belongs to your side of the argument it's to be allowed?
Bollocks.
I know the Titanic hit an iceberg because I sailed a dinghy into an icecube.
Cid
Proper break this time
DexterTCN said:My line of reasoning is fine thanks.
Saying that the destructive qualities of a little plane like this
are to be used to explain explosions and damage caused by jets that destroyed two massive buildings.......it's just as bad as what the CTists say...except because it belongs to your side of the argument it's to be allowed?
Bollocks.
I know the Titanic hit an iceberg because I sailed a dinghy into an icecube.
And this?
(wreckage of an MD-80)
- Status
Similar threads
