Red bull(shit) stratos record.

[The Fish 10821]

You know about networks, fair enough. You know jack shit about satellites, except what you are told they do. You only believe relays and bouncing signals off the ionosphere are not enough because you have been told, it's all to do with satellites.

I'm not calling bullshit on you for this, I'm calling bullshit on those who made this shit up. For example bogus scientists at the very top.

 

The same goes for Rikko. I'm no calling bullshit on him directly. He's been taught by someone who taught someone who taught someone, all the way to the top where bogus science brought it into the fore (my opinion)

 

I just don't believe both of those exist but I couldn't swear on it, I just don;t see how both can work and certainly not how I am led to believe anyway.

 

My point is that you say that these things are lies, despite providing no legit reasons beyond your doubt. Now, given you believe the education system is perpetuating the lie, there is literally nothing anyone can do to prove it, beyond taking you into space yourself. Now these people who've studied and approached the subject from innumerate positions all state x then provide evidence and you state x cannot be true and provide nothing.

 

What's up with that?

[OmaxSteve 0]

SteveO, if you really want to engage in discourse do not put words in my mouth

 

DId I ? If so, I apologize and ask you for the same courtesy.

 

Regards,

 

SteveO.

Edited October 16, 2012 by OmaxSteve

[The Fish 10821]

Lets get down to brass tacs.

 

The consensus is that two planes collided with the two towers causing the deaths of well over 2,000 people.

 

You're saying that's a lie.

 

You're saying that the eyewitness testimony stating they saw planes collide with the towers, are lies.

You're saying the videos of planes colliding with towers are lies

You're saying that the media broadcasting the images of the burning north tower (which lead onto images of a second plane collision) are complicit in the lies

You're saying that this whole charade was committed an as yet unrevealed group

You're saying that without being an expert in any field that would lend weight to your claims, you feel confident dismissing any evidence to the contrary, as fake.

 

 

Are all of these statements a fair representation?

[Renton 21450]

You really need to calm yourself down. Take a shower or something and do some yoga, apparently it relaxes you.

 

What people put on other forums is out of my hands. I am not responsible what other people chat about, so take a chill pill kiddo.

 

You've strongly suggested nobody died, or at least very few people did. You've said you believe in 'vicsims'. Your mate Steve also has stated not a single soul died. He's another one I'd like him to show his convictions in a Brooklyn bar frequented by the FDNY.

 

Take a look at this image taken from the forum you take your opinions from (and yes you do, verbatim). http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1077

 

 

To most people, this is simply a horrific image depicting a scene almost too disturbing to engage with. Yet what is the next comment on the forum?

 

'That image never fails to make me laugh, Simon! Perhaps it was "bring your legless newborn to work" day? '

 

This is pretty much the whole tone of this thread, and indeed forum, which also in the same thread discusses the recent Norwegian massacre and Oklahoma bombing as being hoaxes.

 

Now I know you didn't write this, but I'd like your opinion on two things if you don't mind:

• Do you think this photo and others like it are fake.
  
• Given that 99% of people would disagree, and there's at least some chance you are wrong (assuming you think it is faked, and I think you do), do you think its appropriate for this material to be published in the way it has been?
  

 

Apologies if you think I'm being overly sensitive here but you see I think that site is inhabited by sick fuckers basically.

 

As for Steve, I'd suggest you are about as welcome here as I would be on cluesforum. Basically, fuck right off.

[Renton 21450]

Lets get down to brass tacs.

 

The consensus is that two planes collided with the two towers causing the deaths of well over 2,000 people.

 

You're saying that's a lie.

 

You're saying that the eyewitness testimony stating they saw planes collide with the towers, are lies.

You're saying the videos of planes colliding with towers are lies

You're saying that the media broadcasting the images of the burning north tower (which lead onto images of a second plane collision) are complicit in the lies

You're saying that this whole charade was committed an as yet unrevealed group

You're saying that without being an expert in any field that would lend weight to your claims, you feel confident dismissing any evidence to the contrary, as fake.

 

 

Are all of these statements a fair representation?

 

You could add that all the relatives of the deceased are lying actors, for completeness.

[Monroe Transfer 0]

So the 'children of 9/11' are "simulated victims" according to that forum? Would wolfy or his mate/sockpuppet mind asking one of these kids if they're just good actors?

[OmaxSteve 0]

You've strongly suggested nobody died, or at least very few people did. You've said you believe in 'vicsims'. Your mate Steve also has stated not a single soul died. He's another one I'd like him to show his convictions in a Brooklyn bar frequented by the FDNY.

 

Take a look at this image taken from the forum you take your opinions from (and yes you do, verbatim). http://cluesforum.in...php?f=18&t=1077

 

 

To most people, this is simply a horrific image depicting a scene almost too disturbing to engage with. Yet what is the next comment on the forum?

 

'That image never fails to make me laugh, Simon! Perhaps it was "bring your legless newborn to work" day? '

 

This is pretty much the whole tone of this thread, and indeed forum, which also in the same thread discusses the recent Norwegian massacre and Oklahoma bombing as being hoaxes.

 

Now I know you didn't write this, but I'd like your opinion on two things if you don't mind:

• Do you think this photo and others like it are fake.
  
• Given that 99% of people would disagree, and there's at least some chance you are wrong (assuming you think it is faked, and I think you do), do you think its appropriate for this material to be published in the way it has been?
  

Apologies if you think I'm being overly sensitive here but you see I think that site is inhabited by sick fuckers basically.

 

As for Steve, I'd suggest you are about as welcome here as I would be on cluesforum. Basically, fuck right off.

 

Yes the photo was faked , and the people who made the comments that you object to know that it was faked. Is it appropriate to publish the material? yes. The basis of the site is to expose media fakery. Scrutinizing the photos in a public forum is the stated purpose of the site. The fact that there were no listed casualties of any young children ion the towers victims list probably has something to do with people "laughiing" at the fake photo.

[The Fish 10821]

I honestly hope you never lose a family member to a disaster and find the same people you once considered... whatever the internet equivalent of friends is, laughing at the image of your child/partner/parent in their final moments.

 

[The Fish 10821]

I wonder what the Venn diagram looks like for "Truthers", fans of Swords and Sorcery, over 30s who live with their parents, who are single.

[OmaxSteve 0]

Lets get down to brass tacs.

 

The consensus is that two planes collided with the two towers causing the deaths of well over 2,000 people.

 

You're saying that's a lie.

 

You're saying that the eyewitness testimony stating they saw planes collide with the towers, are lies.

Thats correct

You're saying the videos of planes colliding with towers are lies.

Correct

You're saying that the media broadcasting the images of the burning north tower (which lead onto images of a second plane collision) are complicit in the lies

Correct ( to the extent that they had any control over what they broadcasted)

You're saying that this whole charade was committed an as yet unrevealed group

I don't quite understand what you are attempting to claim I said with this line

You're saying that without being an expert in any field that would lend weight to your claims, you feel confident dismissing any evidence to the contrary, as fake.

Again I don't know what you mean. What evidence to the contrary are you speaking about? I have not seen anything even resembling what can be classified as evidence. Certainly not anything that you have written here. If you have any EVIDENCE to the contrary please share it. I would not dismiss any EVIDENCE as fake without having good reason to do so.

 

Are all of these statements a fair representation?

 

 

 

I answered each statement below the actual line.

 

After asking me NOT to put words in your mouth ( not even sure that I did, but I apologized anyway) you are now trying to frame my arguments in your own words.

Why is that necessary.

 

My position is clear: the entire set of 911 videos and photos depicting airplanes are faked. If you can show me even one authentic photo that has not been photoshopped, or altered, or was not computer generated I will be astonished and admit that I my position "may" be misguided.

I do not believe that anyone died on fictitious airline crashes, and I believe that the vast majority of "victims" that were purported to have died in the towers were not real people but "simulated" victims.

 

If you have any evidence to the contrary I would be glad to see it. ( "consensus" is not evidence by the way.)

 

Regards,

 

SteveO

[tooner 243]

Here are three pictures that prove the images of jumpers (every single one still and video image has been analyzed and proven to be fake) are photoshopped.

 

 

 

 

Those two are real pictures... now look at this one, an obvious phony:

 

 

EDIT:: sorry I inadvertently posted the same picture twice , that is the reason for editing. (S.O).

I repeat : the evidence for video and photo fakery is overwhelming. Until I saw the mountain of evidence for myself I could not believe that this whole thing was a hoax. Now there is no question in my mind . The fact is that even ONE single faked video depicting a plane crashing into a building "live" on 9-11 should be enough to prove that the whole thing was nothing ore than a Hollywood movie. The reality is that EVERY SINGLE video and still photo of an airplane have been scrutinized and there is not ONE SINGLE shot that has held up to be a real, unaltered, photo or video. All the available "jumper" photos, without exception, have also been found to be fraudulent.

 

i'm going to kick myself for this,but you are showing the inside structural steel and comparing it to the ouside architectural and glazing, show me where the outside lines up with the inside then use your fancy colored arrows.

fact is the architectural elements almost never line up exactly with the structural elements so your "science" is flawed.

edit: and looking at the picture again you are comparing the portion that does look to be photoshopped not the part where the people are

 

one thing i DO find interesting about the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 is the speed at which they fell, they did not fail as they were designed to or should have, to which i have no explanation

Edited October 16, 2012 by tooner

[Meenzer 15467]

If you can show me even one authentic photo that has not been photoshopped, or altered, or was not computer generated I will be astonished and admit that I my position "may" be misguided.

 

No you won't.

 

If you have any evidence to the contrary I would be glad to see it.

 

No you wouldn't.

[The Fish 10821]

I answered each statement below the actual line.

 

After asking me NOT to put words in your mouth ( not even sure that I did, but I apologized anyway) you are now trying to frame my arguments in your own words.

Why is that necessary.

 

My position is clear: the entire set of 911 videos and photos depicting airplanes are faked. If you can show me even one authentic photo that has not been photoshopped, or altered, or was not computer generated I will be astonished and admit that I my position "may" be misguided.

I do not believe that anyone died on fictitious airline crashes, and I believe that the vast majority of "victims" that were purported to have died in the towers were not real people but "simulated" victims.

 

If you have any evidence to the contrary I would be glad to see it. ( "consensus" is not evidence by the way.)

 

Regards,

 

SteveO

 

4th line is fairly straight forward, but I'll try again; You believe that the destruction of the twin towers was not the act of terrorism, but was orchestrated by some group.

 

I'm not putting them in my terms to be nefarious you dolt, I'm making sure I've got them right.

 

The sentence I've put in bold above is the crux of the problem. I could present photo after photo after video after video and regardless of the veracity, you will refute them as proof. You will do this despite not knowing enough about any of the pertinent subjects.

 

Do you actually look to reveal the conspiracy? I mean do you study explosives and physics and so on and so forth, to truly be able to say with credibility that the 9/11 disaster is false? I mean, so far you're a faceless name on a screen that expect others to take their word for gospel.

 

If I were certain the government were hiding the truth about, say, the 7/7 atrocities I'd make damned sure I studied the various field so that I could present a paper that proved it, before I mocked the dead.

[The Fish 10821]

i'm going to kick myself for this,but you are showing the inside structural steel and comparing it to the ouside architectural and glazing, show me where the outside lines up with the inside then use your fancy colored arrows.

fact is the architectural elements almost never line up exactly with the structural elements so your "science" is flawed.

edit: and looking at the picture again you are comparing the portion that does look to be photoshopped not the part where the people are

 

one thing i DO find interesting about the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 is the speed at which they fell, they did not fail as they were designed to or should have, to which i have no explanation

 

http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm

[OmaxSteve 0]

do me a favour and fuck off back to where ever it was you got linked here from, wolfy i'll tolerate to a point even if he is a cretin since he at least supports newcastle

 

you however are just some inane moronic wankstain who has came from a forum of like minded...i'm struggling for a word here because frankly some of the utter nonsense on there is beyond the pale

"was the dunblane school massacre a psyop" the fact that had more than two posts sums up that forum in itself

it should've started with "gibberish spouted with some moron" and finished with a second post of someone telling them fucking wise up.

 

Jog on SteveO

 

Sorry, I must have struck a nerve. . Since you are an administrator of the forum , f I am not welcome here, I will gladly "jog" on.

Not sure why all the vitriol. Was not necessary.

 

Regards,and best wishes to all!

 

Steve O.

[trophyshy 7076]

For those of you interested in looking at all these fake photos, there's a good collection of them here;

 

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_photos.html

[Park Life 71]

Planes did hit the buildings and there were many people trapped on the upper levels, these are the facts and not a conspiracy. The only real conspiracy is who was behind the events that day.

I imagine a lot of 'conspiracy sites' that talk absolute twaddle are there as a distraction from the core research and the core debate (also trying to milk a tragic event).

It is known that many dozens have been put up to muddy the waters of the real researchers and the real truth movement (none of whom question the planes).

Edited October 16, 2012 by Park Life

[OmaxSteve 0]

http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm

 

I know that I said goodbye, but the paper referred to here has been dismissed as invalid by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics;

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29EM.1943-7889.0000362?journalCode=jenmdt

 

Sorry, Ant. Here I go jogging on once again. I would like one opportunity to respopnd to Fish's last past but, unless you allow me to do so, I will leave it at that.

 

Enjoy your Forum.

 

regards,

 

Steve O

[OTF 7287]

I pity Steve and Wolfy who have some very obvious mental deficiencies, and hope that one day they will see to getting them sorted/controlled or at the very least that their paranoid and absurd delusions do not result in them taking any actions that will harm another human being.

[The Fish 10821]

Planes did hit the buildings and there were many people trapped on the upper levels, these are the facts and not a conspiracy. The only real conspiracy is who was behind the events that day.

I imagine a lot of 'conspiracy sites' that talk absolute twaddle are there as a distraction from the core research and the core debate (also trying to milk a tragic event).

It is known that many dozens have been put up to muddy the waters of the real researchers and the real truth movement (none of whom question the planes).

 

See that's a whole different story all together. Do I believe that it's possible that the US government were complicit in either allowing the attack to happen, or orchestrated the attack themselves? See that isn't beyond the realms of fantasy.

 

but to say that this vast array of photos, both professional and amateur, to say that the eye witness testimonies, to say they're lies is frankly absurd and incredibly offensive.

[wolfy 12]

You've strongly suggested nobody died, or at least very few people did. You've said you believe in 'vicsims'. Your mate Steve also has stated not a single soul died. He's another one I'd like him to show his convictions in a Brooklyn bar frequented by the FDNY.

 

Take a look at this image taken from the forum you take your opinions from (and yes you do, verbatim). http://cluesforum.in...php?f=18&t=1077

 

 

To most people, this is simply a horrific image depicting a scene almost too disturbing to engage with. Yet what is the next comment on the forum?

 

'That image never fails to make me laugh, Simon! Perhaps it was "bring your legless newborn to work" day? '

 

This is pretty much the whole tone of this thread, and indeed forum, which also in the same thread discusses the recent Norwegian massacre and Oklahoma bombing as being hoaxes.

 

Now I know you didn't write this, but I'd like your opinion on two things if you don't mind:

• Do you think this photo and others like it are fake.
  
• Given that 99% of people would disagree, and there's at least some chance you are wrong (assuming you think it is faked, and I think you do), do you think its appropriate for this material to be published in the way it has been?
  

Apologies if you think I'm being overly sensitive here but you see I think that site is inhabited by sick fuckers basically.

 

As for Steve, I'd suggest you are about as welcome here as I would be on cluesforum. Basically, fuck right off.

Ok Renton, let's put emotion aside because the whole purpose of a hoax on this scale is the reliance of the public to be swayed by the emotion of seeing people hurt and especially kids.

 

In no way shape or form would I disrespect the dead or anyone who has suffered in this, yet the purpose of deciding a hoax, is to look at the evidence and the blatent TV fakery, which includes every frame of video or photo, which can obviously depict many characters in the said frames of video and photo.

 

Nobody is mocking real life people who has suffered from this, it's about exposing the fakery behind the make up of it all.

 

Having said all that, I will now answer your questions.

 

 

 

.........................................................................

• Do you think this photo and others like it are fake. ANSWER: Yes I do.
  
• Given that 99% of people would disagree, and there's at least some chance you are wrong (assuming you think it is faked, and I think you do), do you think its appropriate for this material to be published in the way it has been?....The way you have put this makes it difficult to answer without emotion being involved, so let's clarify that the VIDEO evidence is in question, which includes the characters in the VIDEO.
  

To me, it's 100% manipulated which means and characters depicted in the video are fake.

 

I can't be any clearer than that, yet I'd also like to add that I do not want to see anyone debating this by using EMOTION of that day and would like to see anyone debating it, simply use evidence or pictures that can refute what is being believed by myself.

 

 

I'd just like to add that I don't know steve and because he shares similar thoughts, he should not be tarred with the hatred some people have for me.

 

The lad has put some excellent input into here regardless of it being against the grain and I would appreciate it if the admin let it flow as I was told I can post my batshit comments on my own topic of which ANYONE is welcome to contribute to even if they decide to slaughter me.

 

 

Nobody is mocking kids or anyone in video...it's about the actual blurry photo shopped images that's being discussed.

[wolfy 12]

See that's a whole different story all together. Do I believe that it's possible that the US government were complicit in either allowing the attack to happen, or orchestrated the attack themselves? See that isn't beyond the realms of fantasy.

 

but to say that this vast array of photos, both professional and amateur, to say that the eye witness testimonies, to say they're lies is frankly absurd and incredibly offensive.

What you are suggesting is infinitely worse than what I am pushing.

 

I'm talking about altered images and downright faked witness testimony and you are now saying it's possible the Government allowed 3000 people to be killed.

 

Basically that's what you are saying right? Yet you are also saying that they would not allow TV fakery of this event.

 

Am I missing something here Fish?

[The Fish 10821]

What you are suggesting is infinitely worse than what I am pushing.

 

I'm talking about altered images and downright faked witness testimony and you are now saying it's possible the Government allowed 3000 people to be killed.

 

Basically that's what you are saying right? Yet you are also saying that they would not allow TV fakery of this event.

 

Am I missing something here Fish?

 

It's not about worse, it's about feasibility. The American Government sent thousands of men to die for oil, the UK government allowed the bombing of Coventry so that they could better use the recent breaking of the German's code.

 

Do I think Governments will allow people to die for their goals? Of course they would.

 

Do I believe it's feasible for the conspiracy that you describe? No, it's preposterous.

[wolfy 12]

It's not about worse, it's about feasibility. The American Government sent thousands of men to die for oil, the UK government allowed the bombing of Coventry so that they could better use the recent breaking of the German's code.

 

Do I think Governments will allow people to die for their goals? Of course they would.

 

Do I believe it's feasible for the conspiracy that you describe? No, it's preposterous.

I really don't understand your mindset Fish.

I agree with your point on the Government allowing stuff to happen for their cause, yet I can't understand how you can say it and them dismiss any possibility of faking a 9/11 for a similar goal.

 

You have me scratching my head here Fish, you really do.

 

Anyway, I'll chat tomorrow, I'm off to bed. Goodnight.

[trophyshy 7076]

No, it's preposterous.

 

Another so-called dinotsaur?