View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Questions for the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists (CTs)

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Questions for the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists (CTs)

Postby NinjaPuppy » 05 Oct 2009, 21:47

ProfWag wrote:I got an answer! I got an answer!

"We do not know. We do not have evidence regarding of this. Without evidence, it's impossible to draw a informed conclusion, and the question will remain unanswered. Take a look at http://www.madcowprod.com/blog/documentaries.html for more info on the hijackers. Personally, I suspect that the jets were on autopilot, but since we can not prove this, we do not take a position on it."

"We do not take a position on the Pentagon. The evidence is inconclusive there."


Gee Wiz, I could have told you this much :D
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44






Re: Questions for the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists (CTs)

Postby Nostradamus » 05 Oct 2009, 22:14

Doesn't anyone look at the film of the first plane impacting?
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Questions for the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists (CTs)

Postby ProfWag » 06 Oct 2009, 02:29

Nostradamus wrote:Doesn't anyone look at the film of the first plane impacting?

Why on earth would they do that? It contradicts their conspiracy theories. Of course, I thought it funny they don't take a stand on the Pentagon or the Pennsylvania crash as that completely contradicts their theories and is strong evidence against their simultaneous explosion thoughts. Why weren't the buildings of those planes' intended targets exploded?
I commend them for answering me, but unfortunately, they didn't do much for me to support their theory.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Questions for the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists (CTs)

Postby Nostradamus » 06 Oct 2009, 09:04

I always wondered why the no planers didn't use the first impact. At least some of them claim that the government added the images of the planes to the videos. Guess that wouldn't work with film.

It is weird that they don't take a stand on the Pentagon. I guess it's the voluminous evidence against them that forces the head in sand maneuver.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Questions for the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists (CTs)

Postby NinjaPuppy » 06 Oct 2009, 21:18

Nostradamus wrote:At least some of them claim that the government added the images of the planes to the videos. Guess that wouldn't work with film.


Added the images of the planes??????? :o I'm sorry, I can NOT comprehend the blatent stupidity of such a statement by these people. Why don't these dumbasses go out and find the masses of people who watched both planes crash into the WTC with their own eyes from the ground or from their office windows and ask them if this was done by some video manipulation?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Questions for the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists (CTs)

Postby Nostradamus » 06 Oct 2009, 23:40

I cannot explain it, but I will look for a great video in which the no-planer stands by his story.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Questions for the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists (CTs)

Postby highflyertoo » 08 Oct 2009, 23:46

Cover ups have been happening for many thousands of years, so why all the disbelief about USA Government contributing to 9/11 deaths?

Profwagg should give the information that ''he says'' is availible to prove 9/11 had NO USA GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.

How does Profwagg get to see confiscated film footage and classified documents?
Randi was no researcher of the paranormal even though he tried half heartedly.... Shows over.
highflyertoo
 
Posts: 400
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 09:57

Re: Questions for the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists (CTs)

Postby ProfWag » 09 Oct 2009, 00:18

highflyertoo wrote:Cover ups have been happening for many thousands of years, so why all the disbelief about USA Government contributing to 9/11 deaths?

Profwagg should give the information that ''he says'' is availible to prove 9/11 had NO USA GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.

How does Profwagg get to see confiscated film footage and classified documents?


Highflyertoo, please refer me to the post where I said I had information that "is available to prove 9/11 had NO USA GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT."
Also, please show me where I said I got to see confiscated film footage and classified documents.
I don't believe I have made either of these statements, but if so, please show me where and I will immediately apologize and call myself out.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Questions for the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists (CTs)

Postby Nostradamus » 09 Oct 2009, 08:44

Cover ups have been happening for many thousands of years, so why all the disbelief about USA Government contributing to 9/11 deaths?


Show us the evidence.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Questions for the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists (CTs)

Postby ProfWag » 09 Oct 2009, 18:28

ProfWag wrote:
highflyertoo wrote:Cover ups have been happening for many thousands of years, so why all the disbelief about USA Government contributing to 9/11 deaths?

Profwagg should give the information that ''he says'' is availible to prove 9/11 had NO USA GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.

How does Profwagg get to see confiscated film footage and classified documents?


Highflyertoo, please refer me to the post where I said I had information that "is available to prove 9/11 had NO USA GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT."
Also, please show me where I said I got to see confiscated film footage and classified documents.
I don't believe I have made either of these statements, but if so, please show me where and I will immediately apologize and call myself out.

I should probably clarify that although I don't believe I have said I can prove there was no gov't involvement in 9/11 doesn't mean that I don't believe there wasn't. I believe that terrorists acted alone and all the evidence that I have been shown has led me to believe that.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Questions for the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists (CTs)

Postby ProfWag » 12 Oct 2009, 23:36

I got another reply from A&E 911 for Truth (or whatever the hell they call themselves)!!!!!

From their "official e-mail person" Justin Keogh (I made up that title)

"The explosives are for "shock and awe" effect. If it was just jets hitting buildings the emotional shock of the nation would be much less.

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 6:54 AM, profwag wrote:

Thank you so much for the reply! I'm still finding it hard to believe that terrorists coordinated with someone to blow up the buildings as if they knew they were going to fly into buildings, what would be the need for explosives? However, I do appreciate your honest reply and it helped clarify your stance."

May I simply add, unbelievable response that pisses me off about them even more.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Questions for the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists (CTs)

Postby NinjaPuppy » 12 Oct 2009, 23:41

ProfWag wrote:I got another reply from A&E 911 for Truth (or whatever the hell they call themselves)!!!!!

From their "official e-mail person" Justin Keogh (I made up that title)

"The explosives are for "shock and awe" effect. If it was just jets hitting buildings the emotional shock of the nation would be much less.

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 6:54 AM, profwag wrote:

Thank you so much for the reply! I'm still finding it hard to believe that terrorists coordinated with someone to blow up the buildings as if they knew they were going to fly into buildings, what would be the need for explosives? However, I do appreciate your honest reply and it helped clarify your stance."

May I simply add, unbelievable response that pisses me off about them even more.


"The explosives are for "shock and awe" effect. If it was just jets hitting buildings the emotional shock of the nation would be much less."

I have no words to express my feelings on the stupidity of this statment.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Questions for the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists (CTs)

Postby ProfWag » 13 Oct 2009, 00:06

NinjaPuppy wrote:
"The explosives are for "shock and awe" effect. If it was just jets hitting buildings the emotional shock of the nation would be much less."

I have no words to express my feelings on the stupidity of this statment.


I'm with you Ninja.
What was it Scepoop said in another thread though? Oh yea, “Credible people do not endorse bullsh#& or sign their name to it.”
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Questions for the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists (CTs)

Postby NinjaPuppy » 13 Oct 2009, 00:19

ProfWag wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote: What was it Scepcop said in another thread though? Oh yea, “Credible people do not endorse bullsh#& or sign their name to it.”


Yeah but... that would be taking the subject matter of a petition for an investigation based on a theory completely out of context. Some official e-mail person's stupid statement, "does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the management". Isn't that the usual disclaimer put on all things of this nature?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Questions for the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists (CTs)

Postby ProfWag » 13 Oct 2009, 04:26

NinjaPuppy wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote: What was it Scepcop said in another thread though? Oh yea, “Credible people do not endorse bullsh#& or sign their name to it.”


Yeah but... that would be taking the subject matter of a petition for an investigation based on a theory completely out of context. Some official e-mail person's stupid statement, "does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the management". Isn't that the usual disclaimer put on all things of this nature?

Usually, I would say yes. In this case, however, my questions were asked on the contact list for AE911truth.org and his first response stated very clearly "we" as in we at the AE911truth.org. As such, it is reasonable to assume that he is speaking for them as their spokesman in an official capacity for their organization.
Perhaps Scepoop can contact him or Gage personally to clarify... (hint, hint)
I'm sticking by my belief that that is the explanation of AE911truth.org and Mr. Gage until I hear diferently. In my humble and meek mind, the whole thought of a 9/11 conspiracy is stupid, but hey, I gotta leave the door open if you know what I mean.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 7 guests