3292 replies to this topic

[The New Richard Nixon]

Coffey, on 06 July 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

HD tv's yes, but HD NO. HD has been around since the 70's..

Studio Gear in the 80's was all HD.

Plus the military is usually 10+ years ahead of what civilians have.

You enver wondered how they can redo old films in HD? It's cause the original was HD.

Oh I thought they just enhance the film

[booNyzarC]

Coffey, on 06 July 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

Ok Boon, I can see it now. You can see the Tail and the whole body. I thought the white thing was supposed to tbe the plane, but it's the smoke/debris.

Cool, glad that helped.

Coffey, on 06 July 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

Still doesn't prove it wasn't an inside job though.

Considering that nobody has demonstrated that it was an inside job, I'd say that the burden of proof falls squarely on the shoulders of conspiracy theorists.

Do you not find it odd though that when scrutiny is applied to CT claims that they fall apart?

[Coffey]

The New Richard Nixon, on 06 July 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

Oh I thought they just enhance the film

Some do in a sense, depends if they can get the original or not. Or a copy of the original. True HD is when the original is used though. All expensive cameras back then where recording in high definition. Whats happened with tehcnology is that you now watch everything as it was filmed, where as before you didn't. It was always an inferior copy to the orignal.

[skyeagle409]

Coffey, on 06 July 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

I jsut can't beleive a guy in a cave did it, I can't beleive passports cna be found when everything else is ash,...

Believe it.

Quote

CNN: 'Hijacker' Visa Found in Flight 93 Wreckage

CNN is reporting that 9/11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah's visa was found in the remains of Flight 93 which went down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

http://www.prisonpla...04visafound.htm

Quote

...i can't beleive jet fuel melted the structure supports when a few months before it was shown how this was impossible and that the twin towers could withstand planes being flown into them.

The fires were hot enough to weaken steel, not melt it. Part of the structure was taken out at impact and heat from the fires finished the job.

Quote

John lear said himself he couldn't fly a plane into those building on the first try.

Then, John Lear is a very poor pilot because I did and the maneuver was too slow to have been a standard 2-minute 360 turn and was well within the limitations of a B-757.

Edited by skyeagle409, 06 July 2012 - 06:55 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

...still doesn't prove it's a 757.  Indeed, it suggests strongly that IT WAS NOT a 757

[Coffey]

booNyzarC, on 06 July 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

Considering that nobody has demonstrated that it was an inside job, I'd say that the burden of proof falls squarely on the shoulders of conspiracy theorists.

Do you not find it odd though that when scrutiny is applied to CT claims that they fall apart?

Not all fall apart. I mean this was a minor issue. So all it proves it that a plane went into the pentagon, but 2 planes where put into the twin towers anyway. So I can't see much difference.

However I find it weird that Martina nd Charlie Sheen questioned it and Charlie Sheen even made a proper video to Obama asking him for answers. Obama did not reply. Tehn  Charlie Sheen goes nuts... he was not "crazy" at all during the time he questioned 9/11.

I also don't understand a whole load of things involved in this. There is hundreds of points.

Why did that woman who said she had information and went public saying she would never kill herself.... Was found dead in her shed by her mother...

Why was the Fireman who said he seen bodies in Building 7 (is that right "building 7" - been a while since I looked at this stuff) found dead ro soemthing. Loads of mysterious deaths etc surrounding this. Loads of firemen saying they heard explosions before the planes hit.

How did these terrorists fly these planes with very basic training? And manage to plow them into buildings?

How did these terrorists overpow ex military pilots?

skyeagle409, on 06 July 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

Then, John Lear is a very poor pilot [/color]

Are you serious? Do you know who he is?!

Edited by Coffey, 06 July 2012 - 06:59 PM.

[Coffey]

Pretty impressive that the Jet fuel could produce such a clean cut.

[A Shadow]

booNyzarC said:

As for the supposed 'other footage', you might want to give this a gander.

from the link

Quote

56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
Of the remaining 29 videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
Of the 13 remaining tapes, 12 "only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77."

I'm not arguing one way or the other on the subject, I just see that it does not mention that Flight 77 was not capture on film, just not the impact. Are we to assume that none of them caught it in flight on the way there? Also were all the videos ever release and analysis by the public? I'm not suggesting anything with this, as I know little on the subject, just a curious cat.

[booNyzarC]

Coffey, on 06 July 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

Pretty impressive that the Jet fuel could produce such a clean cut.

Wow Coffey, you really aren't up on these things are you?

That was cut by the clean up crews.  As for your other list of questions in the previous post, I'm not familiar with some of what you said and I'm not sure if this is the thread to address them anyway.  But Charlie Sheen?  You don't seriously think that he went crazy because of influence from some government cabal do you?  Aren't the drugs enough of a reason for his behavior?

[booNyzarC]

A Silent Shadow, on 06 July 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

from the link


I'm not arguing one way or the other on the subject, I just see that it does not mention that Flight 77 was not capture on film, just not the impact. Are we to assume that none of them caught it in flight on the way there? Also were all the videos ever release and analysis by the public? I'm not suggesting anything with this, as I know little on the subject, just a curious cat.

I would consider it a safe assumption to make.  The link doesn't mention that the footage did not show Big Bird either, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that it didn't.  

[skyeagle409]

Coffey, on 06 July 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

Pretty impressive that the Jet fuel could produce such a clean cut.

Perhaps, you missed these photos before. The cuts were made by clean up crews.

Edited by skyeagle409, 06 July 2012 - 07:28 PM.

[Coffey]

Ah i get that then, so that was twisted then.

booNyzarC, on 06 July 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

  But Charlie Sheen?  You don't seriously think that he went crazy because of influence from some government cabal do you?  Aren't the drugs enough of a reason for his behavior?

I know drugs, i know them very well. I know drugs never cause that behaviour. Drugs do not cause any of the things the media blames them for. They only enhance things.

If you are happy and take them, then youa re in for a good time.

If you are paranoid and take them, welcome to hell.

If you are upset and take them, well call an ambulance.

If you are angry and take them, call soemone else and Ambulance.

Obviosuly it depends on certian drugs, but those are pretty much the common rules. Drugs are often blamed for creating the problem, when it is people who createthe problem, drugs just make them worse like alcohal.

In fact alcohal is worse than msot ilegal drugs. Yet we are allowed it.

but that's another subject, my point is the majority of people read these BS media stories related to drugs and don't know anything about them. (If you haven't done drugs or lived aorund them daily, then you can't know about them, scientists who show reports on them lie, as they are the same scientists working for companies who sell legal medical drugs)

I don't beleive Charlie Sheen went crazy becaus eof drugs, I beleive he went crazy and then tried to use drugs as an answer to it. Which leaves the question, why did he go crazy?

too many people dismiss Charlie Sheen quesitoning 9/11 because he went crazy on drugs. kinda convenient isn't it? But what about Martin Sheen... Why would someone as rich and famous as hm, wiho is always busy... Still question it? I find that strange.

Edited by Coffey, 06 July 2012 - 07:41 PM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

If it was a missile or whatever is the preferred rational explanation*, why? Why should They fly a missile or a drone or whatever into the Pent, when they'd already,. unequivocally, flown two planes into the WTC. Why go to all th trouble of constructing another plot again running parallel to the one (or two, if UA93 was also part of it) they'd already carried out? And yet again, what happened to the flight that there was purprorted to be? I've heard tales that there were an unusual proportion of Government employees; so does that mean that they were all double agents who were in on the plot, or were they spirited away into new lives under this apparently inecredibly effective and efficient plan that the Government has?


*since, obviously, the Official explanation is so much more irrational .....

... Oughtn't this be in matephysics and Psychic Phenomena? I'm getting a distinct sense of deja vu here ....

[The New Richard Nixon]

Lol what they don't realise that there was children on those flights..

[Coffey]

The New Richard Nixon, on 06 July 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

Lol what they don't realise that there was children on those flights..

There is also Children in  Afghanistan, who die and suffer every day. Does that not trouble them?