there was no moon landing .... discus

[tezz79]

That is the only wreckage of fuselage there is from the 9/11 767s, Just another prop like the engine under the scaffolding.


Plenty of time to get it there for the photo opportunity. Or may be just a bit of photo shopping given the back ground. Who knows ?
.

As for your link.

Here's the Carmen Taylor shot. Which is simply a still from the faked CNN Hezakhani footage.

People give you the proof you ask for & you just dismiss it as cgi/photoshop/people lying/people not knowing what they really saw,special agents planting the wreckage you denied existed...... There's nothing that would convince you Collinz because you want your little fantasy to be real & the reason you take so long answering questions is because you have not had the answers so you take a couple of days to find a different bullshit slant on the funny conspiracy forums or websites on the events & this is why you keep contradicting yourself.
You're actually one of the most idiotic posters I think I've seen on NSC........f***ing "truther" hahaha sort yourself out & grow up ffs !!

 

[pastafarian]

The whole 9/11 IMHO would have been highly compartmentalised on a need to know basis, probably only a hundred or so people needed to have had, a complete overview on the full operational details.

Firstly you need to know the exact location where your brother & work mates were, they may have seen a missile as discussed by Rosa in an earlier post..

so now 9/11 was organized by 100 people?
do you actually have evidence........probably not!

what happened to your no witnesses and it was CGI theory?
when did you start to think it could now be a missile?

making it up as you go along really is not a good basis for a conspiracy theory.

and answer my previous question which you are conveniently ignoring how were the remains of some of the people on the flights identified in the locations where you would expect if planes hit the towers....ie amongst the debris

 

[pastafarian]

Firstly you need to know the exact location where your brother & work mates were, they may have seen a missile as discussed by Rosa in an earlier post. Or simply saw the explosion and become influenced by what they saw on television.
.

and why if someone claims they eyewitnessed a plane,you come up with this cock and bull there were no witnesses they simply saw it on TV.........yet conveniently if someone eyewitnessed a missile,these witnesses are suddenly allowed to exist and you throw your weight behind their claims

 

[tezz79]

Just out of curiosity what other conspiracy theories do you believe in [MENTION=17480]colinz[/MENTION] ?
Are you like falmer & believe in all of them ?

 

[colinz]

People give you the proof you ask for & you just dismiss it as cgi/photoshop/people lying/people not knowing what they really saw,special agents planting the wreckage you denied existed...... There's nothing that would convince you Collinz because you want your little fantasy to be real & the reason you take so long answering questions is because you have not had the answers so you take a couple of days to find a different bullshit slant on the funny conspiracy forums or websites on the events & this is why you keep contradicting yourself.
You're actually one of the most idiotic posters I think I've seen on NSC........f***ing "truther" hahaha sort yourself out & grow up ffs !!

What proof, the only proof is what we were shown live on our TV screens on the actual day.
Which was a plane entering a building with it's nose cone popping out the otherside unscathed, once that cock up was realised everything else was damage control mode.

As for the eye witnesses, a couple of anonymous posters, posting hear say about what a relative/ family member has told them, does not an eye witness make.

As for the wreckage, a couple of pieces from the landing gear, an engine landing under some scaffolding, and a small piece of fuselage, which even you would have to admit would not be difficult to plant.

As for not answering quick enough to peoples questions, I went away last weekend, and my son is using my computor during the week, whilst his lap top is getting repaired.
Plus there isn't much more to say on this, unless I'm presented with some cast iron proof that planes can fly into buildings, instead of crashing.

As for 'what other "conspiracy theories" I believe in', once you realise you've been conned & lied to once, everything is up for scrutiny, especially where faked footage is easily implemented to be spoon fed to the media .

As for the missile theory, I don't think a missile could have been used, without damaging what ever was pre set for the controlled demolition of the towers.
But I wouldn't write it off totally without knowing how the buildings were pulled.
If you think thats me hedging my bets then so be it.

 

[pastafarian]

What proof, the only proof is what we were shown live on our TV screens on the actual day.
.
As for the eye witnesses, a couple of anonymous posters, posting hear say about what a relative/ family member has told them, does not an eye witness make.

you are a cock of the highest order,only a thick moronic twat like you could actually believe for one instant there were no eye witnesses on 9/11.
im not sure if you know this but New York is quite a large city,people do things like walk along the street,wait for a bus,go shopping,......why cant you grasp this obvious fact?.......

and as for the wreckage being planted as you claim occurred ..where is your proof...why is their no evidence this happened...not one person ever has come forward and said i saw agents planting the evidence.......now why is that?,was everyone indoors watching TV?

f*** i hope you never had children.

 

[colinz]

you are a cock of the highest order,only a thick moronic twat like you could actually believe for one instant there were no eye witnesses on 9/11.
im not sure if you know this but New York is quite a large city,people do things like walk along the street,wait for a bus,go shopping,......why cant you grasp this obvious fact?.......

and as for the wreckage being planted as you claim occurred ..where is your proof...why is their no evidence this happened...not one person ever has come forward and said i saw agents planting the evidence.......now why is that?,was everyone indoors watching TV?

f*** i hope you never had children.

f*** it is you who is the cock, I have said there were no verifiable eye witnesses not working in the media, who saw an AEROPLANE.

Why the f*** do I have to prove that the wreckage was planted, when the wreckage itself is such that it could be easily planted, there is only about 4 isolated pieces of wreckage, it wouldn't have taken a cast of thousands to plant it.

Let's work it out maybe a truck/ utility van with a lifting device, and a couple of operators for the engine wreckage. I've already explained how easy it would have been to place the engine under the scaffolding. Because it did not land there after flying more than a hundred meters, without forming any type of indentation to the side walk.
Don't you read any of my posts.
The fuselage was photographed late October 2001, there would have been a huge time frame available.

Do you want me to post pictures of what real aircraft wreckage looks like ? or are you going to just believe it all vaporised.

You need to sort out your cognitive dissonance, and get use to the fact that the live footage shown on TV featuring the nose cone of UA175, travelling through the building & popping out the other side unscathed, is an impossibility.
Even with your obsession with eye witnesses, how do you explain the above.

 

[Curious Orange]

Good grief, is this still going on...

* shrugs and wanders off... although a little concerned that the '83 Cup Final might have been a hoax as it was on TV, and therefore my Dad is possibly a liar... *

 

[m20gull]

f*** it is you who is the cock, I have said there were no verifiable eye witnesses not working in the media, who saw an AEROPLANE.

So what counts as verifiable? You have shown that you will believe stuff you have seen on Youtube,. How much verificiation did you do?
Even posting on this UK-based football-themed site has flushed out two eye-witnesses (OK not posters but siblings).

You need to sort out your cognitive dissonance, and get use to the fact that the live footage shown on TV featuring the nose cone of UA175, travelling through the building & popping out the other side unscathed, is an impossibility.
Even with your obsession with eye witnesses, how do you explain the above.

I do not see anyone has to explain something that is only visible on Youtube.

And did we ever get to the bottom of whether space-flight (manned or otherwise) is an "impossibility"?

 

[tezz79]

What proof, the only proof is what we were shown live on our TV screens on the actual day.
Which was a plane entering a building with it's nose cone popping out the otherside unscathed, once that cock up was realised everything else was damage control mode.

As for the eye witnesses, a couple of anonymous posters, posting hear say about what a relative/ family member has told them, does not an eye witness make.

As for the wreckage, a couple of pieces from the landing gear, an engine landing under some scaffolding, and a small piece of fuselage, which even you would have to admit would not be difficult to plant.

As for not answering quick enough to peoples questions, I went away last weekend, and my son is using my computor during the week, whilst his lap top is getting repaired.
Plus there isn't much more to say on this, unless I'm presented with some cast iron proof that planes can fly into buildings, instead of crashing.

As for 'what other "conspiracy theories" I believe in', once you realise you've been conned & lied to once, everything is up for scrutiny, especially where faked footage is easily implemented to be spoon fed to the media .

As for the missile theory, I don't think a missile could have been used, without damaging what ever was pre set for the controlled demolition of the towers.
But I wouldn't write it off totally without knowing how the buildings were pulled.
If you think thats me hedging my bets then so be it.

You asked for eyewitness accounts, you got them & dismissed them.
You asked why there was no wreckage, you got wreckage but now dismiss it.

You can't keep moving the f***ing goalposts.... You've been given what YOU asked for & now say oh that's not proof, well why f***ing ask for it then ?

 

[One Love]

(I am sorry if I offend you Colinz.)

He's decided what happened based on some idiot's video on Youtube.

His mind is completely closed to any other version of the events including the TRUTH. Any proof that is posted, any argument that is raised, if it doesn't agree with his viewpoint then he dismisses it without any consideration. Quite frankly I have come to the only conclusion possible which is that unfortunately he is ill and in complete denial of the fact.

So what is the point in having a discussion with him? Answer = NONE.

 

[tezz79]

As for the eye witnesses, a couple of anonymous posters, posting hear say about what a relative/ family member has told them, does not an eye witness make

Pastafarian posted you a link of eyewitness accounts on post 705 (more than a couple & none of which are family members of anybody on NSC)
Like I said" you asked for it, there it is but you'll dismiss it so what was the point asking for it ?
Nothing will convince you because you want it to be true

 

[tezz79]

(I am sorry if I offend you Colinz.)

He's decided what happened based on some idiot's video on Youtube.

His mind is completely closed to any other version of the events including the TRUTH. Any proof that is posted, any argument that is raised, if it doesn't agree with his viewpoint then he dismisses it without any consideration. Quite frankly I have come to the only conclusion possible which is that unfortunately he is ill and in complete denial of the fact.

So what is the point in having a discussion with him? Answer = NONE.

Exactly mate, pretty much what I have been saying

 

[Kumquat]

Colinz is right about one thinge h says. "As for 'what other "conspiracy theories" I believe in', once you realise you've been conned & lied to once, everything is up for scrutiny, especially where faked footage is easily implemented to be spoon fed to the media".

I know someone just like him and the problem is that the guy i kno thinks everything where there is a possible conspiracy IS a conspiracy. The reason being because someone once f***ed him over in a business deal and now he has to question the veracity and motives of anything. Personally I think the moon landing would be quite easy to fake back in those days and understand why people might believe that one given the arms and kudos race between the USSR and the USA at the time. But the 9/11 one is frankly ridiculous.

 

[The_Real_SussexSeagull123]

lol

 

[Norman Potting]

....So have we come to a conclusion whether or not the moon landings were fake, or not??

 

[readingstockport]

You asked for eyewitness accounts, you got them & dismissed them.
You asked why there was no wreckage, you got wreckage but now dismiss it.

You can't keep moving the f***ing goalposts.... You've been given what YOU asked for & now say oh that's not proof, well why f***ing ask for it then ?

I notice you quoted colinz. And dear f***ing god he has a son, or at least he claims to have one.

However. Considering there are no verifible eye witnesses to the fact he a/ has one and that b/ it was him that impregnated the mother then I suspect in colinz eyes he doesn't have a son and it's all one big cconspiracy theory to make him pay for the upbringing of someone elses bastard.

It's the only explanation wouldn't you agree colinz?

 

[One Love]

....So have we come to a conclusion whether or not the moon landings were fake, or not??

So far Colinz has produced zero evidence or proof and no sensible argument that they were faked.

Probably because he has none. Nevertheless he is convinced they were, no doubt.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Of course the lunar landings were filmed in a studio,they were in order to study and practice the landing sequence,what were they meant to do having never been there before,just turn up and land?

Did we go? yes,can i prove it? no-however any body that thinks we did not is sleepwalking through life.

 

[shellsuit]

Why the f*** do I have to prove that the wreckage was planted, when the wreckage itself is such that it could be easily planted, there is only about 4 isolated pieces of wreckage, it wouldn't have taken a cast of thousands to plant it.

it might be an alien concept to you colinz but generally when you believe a theory the idea is to back it up with evidence.you are unable to back up your claim the debris was planted with any type of evidence at all,not even one eye witness out of the thousands of people present nor any amateur or tv footage,making shit up is not really providing evidence or is it?

i believe your just a washed up hippy with a massive chip on your shoulder.i bet your a vegan too.of course according to you i dont need any evidence of this ive just put it out there on the internet so it must be true.