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

Stood directly under the tower but sees no plane

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.

The TV fakery of 9/11

Postby accidentsinspace » 17 Oct 2009, 21:43

You will very rarely ever hear about No Planes on thenews because they would rather you remained unaware of the theory. Alternatively, the Controlled demolition/drone planes scenario is pushed very regularly. Why is this? Let me tell you. The whole 'drone planes scenario is a NWO construction. It is a controlled opposition. How many years have people been squabbling and arguing about the jet fuel v bombs debate? The amount of time spent in that particular realm is probably close to 90%. It's a trick. I urge everybody to watch ALL parts of September Clues and you will discover, for instance, that many of the people who saw a plane hit the Pentagon were ALL executive producers within the media. You will witness footage of black wobbly images melting through the buildings like a hot knife through butter. The perps of 9/11 would never have used drone planes. It was far too risky to be messing around switching planes. I mean, what if one or both of the planes had missed their targets and landed in the Hoboken river? No, they used the biggest brainwashing device on the planet: TELEVISION. It has worked to control the populace for decades. Television has served its masters well. It certainly worked its magic on 9/11.There were no missiles, no holograms,just good old fashioned special effects. There was not thousands of witnesses,this is another meme let loose by the media. The mass media has the world under the impression that there were many witnesses. This is a myth. After the North Tower was hit the police would have cleared people away. The closer vantage points were mostly obscured by the gigantic height of the towers themselves anyway. People saw explosions.told that a plane hit, they then conclude that they saw the plane hit. Most New Yorkers witnessed the events unfold on sidewalk television screens or within cafes, or at home. Much of the so called 'amateur imagery' was created before 9/11. They used and exploited human psychology to the full,"I was there,I saw the planes hit." In reality, many saw planes, there were many planes in the area, there was a sly flyover or two. The best way to mind control anybody is to inflict a trauma on to them and then fill in the blanks. The fact that a 'plane crash' which supposedly happened at 500 mph could be missed in the blink of an eyelid. Remember the beserk rerun of images of the second plane hitting the second tower, over and over and over again? They were burning the images into the collective consciousness of an unsuspecting public. So,the whole ridiculous jet fuel debate is extinguished, the hijacker chat is removed, and FULL MEDIA COMPLICITY at the highest levels is exposed. Job done.
Last edited by accidentsinspace on 17 Oct 2009, 22:31, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31






Re: The TV fakery of 9/11

Postby ProfWag » 17 Oct 2009, 21:58

accidentsinspace wrote: ...that the people who saw a plane hit the Pentagon were ALL executive producers within the media.

Please provide a reference for this statement.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The TV fakery of 9/11

Postby accidentsinspace » 17 Oct 2009, 22:07

ProfWag wrote:
accidentsinspace wrote: ...that the people who saw a plane hit the Pentagon were ALL executive producers within the media.

Please provide a reference for this statement.


If you actually watched the September Clues documentary you would have seen the interviews with these producers. Obviously you watched none of it. Well done! I am not here to spoonfeed you.
User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31

Re: The TV fakery of 9/11

Postby ProfWag » 17 Oct 2009, 22:11

accidentsinspace wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
accidentsinspace wrote: ...that the people who saw a plane hit the Pentagon were ALL executive producers within the media.

Please provide a reference for this statement.


If you actually watched the September Clues documentary you would have seen the interviews with these producers. Obviously you watched none of it. Well done! I am not here to spoonfeed you.

So the bottom line is you don't have a reference that the only people who saw a plane hit the Pentagon were only executive producers in the media? I didn't think so.
I watched the first 10 minutes of your video. I couldn't stomach any more.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The TV fakery of 9/11

Postby accidentsinspace » 17 Oct 2009, 22:23

ProfWag wrote:Please provide a reference for this statement.


accidentsinspace wrote:If you actually watched the September Clues documentary you would have seen the interviews with these producers. Obviously you watched none of it. Well done! I am not here to spoonfeed you.

ProfWag wrote:So the bottom line is you don't have a reference that the only people who saw a plane hit the Pentagon were only executive producers in the media? I didn't think so.
I watched the first 10 minutes of your video. I couldn't stomach any more.


The reference is that IT IS IN THE SEPTEMBER CLUES VIDEO. THE PRODUCERS ARE BEING INTERVIEWED. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? You say you are here with an open mind, yet you admit you 'could only stomach ten minutes of it'. Why, because it is the typical Pseodoscientist/JREF response and blanket refusual to investigate anything out of your cosy worldview. You are a mug and a timewaster. Why are you here?
User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31

Re: The TV fakery of 9/11

Postby accidentsinspace » 17 Oct 2009, 22:29

Also, quit the shitty tactics of misquoting me. Don't bring your 'JREF psychiatric stink camp' sly tricks here.
User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31

Re: The TV fakery of 9/11

Postby ProfWag » 18 Oct 2009, 00:35

accidentsinspace wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Please provide a reference for this statement.


accidentsinspace wrote:If you actually watched the September Clues documentary you would have seen the interviews with these producers. Obviously you watched none of it. Well done! I am not here to spoonfeed you.

ProfWag wrote:So the bottom line is you don't have a reference that the only people who saw a plane hit the Pentagon were only executive producers in the media? I didn't think so.
I watched the first 10 minutes of your video. I couldn't stomach any more.


The reference is that IT IS IN THE SEPTEMBER CLUES VIDEO. THE PRODUCERS ARE BEING INTERVIEWED. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? You say you are here with an open mind, yet you admit you 'could only stomach ten minutes of it'. Why, because it is the typical Pseodoscientist/JREF response and blanket refusual to investigate anything out of your cosy worldview. You are a mug and a timewaster. Why are you here?

Just because some producers were interviewed doesn't mean that they were the only ones who saw the planes hit the Pentagon. Typical red herring by someone trying to brainwash others.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The TV fakery of 9/11

Postby accidentsinspace » 18 Oct 2009, 01:32

Yeah, whatever. You still did not clarify whether you were talking about the Theresa Renaud, wife of a CBS producer. Were you?
User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31

Re: The TV fakery of 9/11

Postby accidentsinspace » 18 Oct 2009, 01:41

I think Teresa Renaud is a very special person with extra special bionic sight to be able to see a plane crashing into the WTC...all the way from Chelsea, at EXACTLY the time she was on the phone to the media discussing the towers on a LIVE FEED.

Oh yes, she is very, very special....
User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31

Re: The TV fakery of 9/11

Postby ProfWag » 18 Oct 2009, 02:09

accidentsinspace wrote:I think Teresa Renaud is a very special person with extra special bionic sight to be able to see a plane crashing into the WTC...all the way from Chelsea, at EXACTLY the time she was on the phone to the media discussing the towers on a LIVE FEED.

Oh yes, she is very, very special....

Yea, that's the same Teresa. And no, seeing an airplane from 2 1/2 miles away on a clear day from one skyscraper to another is quite normal. Don't believe me? Go outside right now and look up in the sky and find an airplane. They are flying at 35,000 ft or roughly 6 1/2 miles. I'm assuming you have never sat inside a control tower on a runway? I'm sure you haven't or you would know how plain it is to see from that distance.
And I also noticed you ignored my post about her conversation being edited that removed key information. Either you know it was edited or refuse to investigate it on your own. In either event, it proves to me that the theory of no planes is a sham and the person presenting it in September Clues was a flat out con-artist.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The TV fakery of 9/11

Postby accidentsinspace » 18 Oct 2009, 02:15

Haha, so now you are venturing into 'magical thinking' again. If this phonecall was edited, please provide evidence of the 'unedited' version. Or does it only exist within your own fantasy? :lol:
User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31

Re: The TV fakery of 9/11

Postby ProfWag » 18 Oct 2009, 02:26

accidentsinspace wrote:Haha, so now you are venturing into 'magical thinking' again. If this phonecall was edited, please provide evidence of the 'unedited' version. Or does it only exist within your own fantasy? :lol:

4:45 minutes into the video...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 101057550#
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The TV fakery of 9/11

Postby accidentsinspace » 18 Oct 2009, 02:50

ProfWag wrote:4:45 minutes into the video...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 101057550#


Please talk me through it. I am quite alarmed at the fact that you only watch 1ominutes of September Clues, yet cream your pants over a so called 'debunking video. So, basically you have decided to debunk something you have no knowledge of in the first place? Ermmm, typical pseudo scientific reaction. Now, please talk me through this edited call. )Also, as a footnote, Simon Shack has invited the maker of this debunking' video several times for a live debate but the maker refuses. I wonder why? :roll: )
User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31

Re: The TV fakery of 9/11

Postby ProfWag » 18 Oct 2009, 02:59

accidentsinspace wrote:
ProfWag wrote:4:45 minutes into the video...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 101057550#

Now, please talk me through this edited call. )Also, as a footnote, Simon Shack has invited the maker of this debunking' video several times for a live debate but the maker refuses. I wonder why? :roll: )

Talk you through what? If you can't see how moronic the September Clues video is, I'm afraid I can be of no further assistance to you except to remind you to look outside at that airplane that's 4 times further away than what Theresa saw. Done that yet?
And yes, Simon is a con artist which means I don't believe anything he says, but less that he is willing to debate anyone.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The TV fakery of 9/11

Postby accidentsinspace » 18 Oct 2009, 03:15

ProfWag wrote:
accidentsinspace wrote:
ProfWag wrote:4:45 minutes into the video...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 101057550#

Now, please talk me through this edited call. )Also, as a footnote, Simon Shack has invited the maker of this debunking' video several times for a live debate but the maker refuses. I wonder why? :roll: )

Talk you through what? If you can't see how moronic the September Clues video is, I'm afraid I can be of no further assistance to you except to remind you to look outside at that airplane that's 4 times further away than what Theresa saw. Done that yet?
And yes, Simon is a con artist which means I don't believe anything he says, but less that he is willing to debate anyone.


Get away from me, nutter! :o
User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31

Next

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests