video debunking 9/11 conspiracies

[editor]

Because he will pick his moment very carefully indeed to comment about 9-11 itself himself, if indeed he is going to

What a cop out.

 

[Jazzz]

I think this is the point where Dr Jazzz abandons the thread, and gets awfully cross when someone posts on it in a few days.

There's nothing quite like your presence to lower the tone, it's true

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Well, here we all are again

 

[editor]

There's nothing quite like your presence to lower the tone, it's true

Sweet.

 

[DaveCinzano]

THEY want you to think reading is in berkshire, not essex...

 

[pk]

As a nut.



Show us your missile pictures again Dr Jazzz!

 

[pk]

The official story of 9-11 is now crumbling.

I have to say, it will come as a small satisfaction to watch the likes of editor, pk, Loki (and many others too, apologies if I miss your name out) have to pretend that of course they didn't believe the official nonsense at all.

Oh and don't fucking drag me into your stupid debates Dr Jazzz, you pathetic lying little runt.

Everything you've ever "declared" as truth has been debunked within minutes.

Everything.

In reality, 9/11 was bollocks to begin with, highly embarrassing even for the dumb US government, and I have my doubts about much of it.

But the day I have to pretend to have believed some Joe Vialls fan telling me about missiles hitting the Pentagon, or special pods built under the wing of the planes that hit the WTC, is the day I take a trip to Stoke Newington and slam the piano lid down hard on someone's fingers.

 

[brixtonvilla]

You having fun yet, Dr J?

 

[editor]

You having fun yet, Dr J?

I don't know about DrJ, but I'm certainly having fun.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I don't know about DrJ, but I'm certainly having fun.

I'd never have guessed....

 

[Jazzz]

In reality, 9/11 was bollocks to begin with, highly embarrassing even for the dumb US government, and I have my doubts about much of it.

like... what exactly?

what the hell do you mean, 'bollocks to begin with'?

I think we need to know.

 

[neilh]

i agree wi the folk saying just cos the USG version may not be true, it doesn't mean it was anything to do wi invisible missiles and lizards and stuff; however, in the past it seems imo to have been mainly the folk who do believe the official view who've been propagating this idea that it's either one or the other, cos whenever someone's come out with anything reasonably plausible or expressed doubt on official theories, the next post has been someone calling them a conspiraloon and saying, well you probably believe in lizards and are into UFO's and stuff.

 

[editor]

...., cos whenever someone's come out with anything reasonably plausible or expressed doubt on official theories, the next post has been someone calling them a conspiraloon and saying, well you probably believe in lizards and are into UFO's and stuff.

That'll be because the person making the claim has usually already expressed a belief in invisible missiles, invisible pods, invisible explosives in the WTC and the CIA Mike Yarwood Division, and their story is inevitably culled from some bonkers site stuffed full of yarns about UFOs, mind control and all the usual deluded cobblers.

 

[neilh]

That'll be because the person making the claim has usually already expressed a belief in invisible missiles, invisible pods, invisible explosives in the WTC and the CIA Mike Yarwood Division, and their story is inevitably culled from some bonkers site stuffed full of yarns about UFOs, mind control and all the usual deluded cobblers.

usually, but not always. sometimes folk don't express a belief in any of these things, or link to such websites, but still, once doubt about official stories is expressed, its all lizard and ufo accusations and words like "conspiraloon".

 

[Jazzz]

Do you really still believe the official story, editor?

 

[Loki]

Do you really still believe the ridiculous story you peddled about Huntley, DrJazzz? Or will you finally apologise?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

usually, but not always. sometimes folk don't express a belief in any of these things, or link to such websites, but still, once doubt about official stories is expressed, its all lizard and ufo accusations and words like "conspiraloon".

Unfortunately you appear not to be familiar with the histories of said posters.

 

[neilh]

Unfortunately you appear not to be familiar with the histories of said posters.

no, what i was saying is, it isn't just dr jazzz or others who'll link to sites like that, but sometimes others without that kind of history that provoke that kind of response.

 

[editor]

Do you really still believe the official story, editor?

I believe it's more likely than invisible missiles being fired from invisible pods carried by pretend passenger aircraft whose passengers were spontaneously perfectly mimicked by a team of CIA Mike Yarwoods as the planes crashed into a WTC pre-wired with invisible missiles.

I also find it more believable than your story about two near-invisible rush hour aircraft flying "dangerously low" over Long Island bound for Manhattan in an illegal formation only being spotted by two anonymous eye-witnesses who just happened to exclusively contact a fruitloop with their highly unlikely yarn while insisting on total anonymity.

I also find it more believable than your ludicrous fantasy that paedophile American servicemen killed the Soham schoolgirls resulting in an evil plot to frame Ian Huntley to ensure continuing British support for the 'war on terror'.

But, you're the kind of guy who believes claims made by an invisible and untraceable 'expert' with no known history or published papers posting on an invisible and untraceable bulletin board.

With these kinds of idiotic claims being willingly swallowed up by you on a near-daily basis, I can only conclude that you wouldn't know the truth if it French kissed you, licked your botty and took you out for dinner afterwards.

 

[Jazzz]

That wasn't what I asked. I asked if you still believed the official story.

Or do you have your doubts?

 

[editor]

That wasn't what I asked. I asked if you still believed the official story.

Or do you have your doubts?

Only a fool would believe every single word the US government told them. But only a bigger fool would lap up the insulting shit served up by fucking lying clowns like Vialls.

That'll be you, then.

 

[Loki]

Do you really still believe the ridiculous story you peddled about Huntley, DrJazzz? Or will you finally apologise?

I believe that was the fifth time of asking. Although it could easily be the seventh.

Perhaps one day you might apologise, DrJ.

 

[Jazzz]

Only a fool would believe every single word the US government told them. But only a bigger fool would lap up the insulting shit served up by fucking lying clowns like Vialls.

That'll be you, then.

So which elements of the official story have you doubts about? Can you name any?

 

[neilh]

I believe that was the fifth time of asking. Although it could easily be the seventh.

Perhaps one day you might apologise, DrJ.

i thought he already covered this a couple of days back.

 

[editor]

So which elements of the official story have you doubts about? Can you name any?

Sorry. There's no point trying to have a rational discussion with someone who thinks that the WTC was hit by invisible missiles blasted out of invisible pods and imploded from within by invisible explosives planted by invisible people.

 

[jacobs steel]

So which elements of the official story have you doubts about?

What actually is the 'official' story?

 

[Loki]

i thought he already covered this a couple of days back.

He did? Sorry if I missed it. Kindly point to the post.

 

[neilh]

What actually is the 'official' story?

the official story, i suppose, would mean the version of events that the US government gives out, ie the buildings collapsed as a result of the impact of and incineration of fuel from, 2 passanger planes, which were hijacked along with a few others, by men trained by or ordered by osama bin laden, and that another was crashed into the pentagon.
There's always gonna be wee details that'll be debated by anyone, or that they'll inevitably get wrong, but i'd say if someone believes that last paragraph, then they more or less believe the "official" story.

 

[Jazzz]

Sorry. There's no point trying to have a rational discussion with someone who thinks that the WTC was hit by invisible missiles blasted out of invisible pods and imploded from within by invisible explosives planted by invisible people.

Sorry, I consider that you are unable to name a single bit of the official theory you have doubts about. The truth is you are unable to take a position in debate. You want to have it all ways.

and you're talking nonsense. The only 'invisible' thing on September 11 was flight 77, which appears to have been invisible to numerous video cameras.

You can see what some people claim is a 'pod' (whether it is or not, that's another question). You can see the missile flashes. You can see the debris flung out horizontally by the explosives. You can see them going off.

As for 'rational discussion', well this is impossible with someone who believes that Building 7 collapsed without provocation!

 

[neilh]

He did? Sorry if I missed it. Kindly point to the post.

i'll try and find it, cant remember what thread it was on. but iirc, he said that he had apologised before(though i didn't see this original apology, or cant mind it), and that he now does believe huntley to be guilty and not set up. geez a minute and i'll hopefully find it.