.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
Comedy Time
-
Posts
794 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Comedy Time
-
-
34 minutes ago, Reet Hard said:
Now admittedly we don't know what speed the aircraft was going at but it shows a wooden telgraph pole cutting through the aluminium wing.
Yet we are to believe an aluminium wing would cut through the steel beams on the tower
Well firstly that is a smaller plane and narrower wing. I have no idea as to the fuel situation in relation to how it is deployed on the first video plane, but 767's load it in the wings. Quite obviously both are somewhere around landing speed.
Smaller planes, slower speed narrower wings and unknown whether the first one contains fuel. The DC7 is quite small compared to a 767.
All in all, vastly different.
-
9 minutes ago, Reet Hard said:
You get conformation bias amongst all groups of people.
Nice typo, people do like to conform, but obviously you meant confirmation bias.
Of course it's true, but reasonable people are capable of looking at conflicting data without throwing a hissy fit and labelling the messenger a shill or other such crap. Look at the no planers (you as well?) they will not answer to something as completely fundamental as the inwards facing columns on the blast.
-
32 minutes ago, alexa said:
I've noticed that you deliberately change the subject when you are at a loss for words.
You don't notice anything at all and I'm never at a loss for words with you..........Well sometimes I am.... but not for reasons that would make you happy. As for "changing the subject", the subject was your infatuation with the imaginary sky wizard and I have no polite words on the matter.
32 minutes ago, alexa said:Ha never mind I can answer your question in regards to satellites.
What a rather useless grasp of reality you have. I show you a picture of thousands of Moroccan sky dishes all pointing upwards and at something in the sky and you quote some horseshit about cell towers.
HELLO??? They are pointing at the sky???
Anyone who has had their dish installed, any installation engineer, anyone who has any idea about reality.....they position the dish pointing upwards and at a point exactly where the orbiting satellite sits.
-
1 hour ago, mishy said:
Blurred or not, there's no plane shaped hole. That means a plane didn't cause the hole. How the exterior was blown inwards is your problem, you need to prove a plane did it. The available footage shows the planes to be CGI.
I don't care what you think, Rupert.
And no, I won't fucking Shhhhhhhh.
Smoke in the way......are you blind. It's blurred as well.
The shhhhhh was for everyone waiting for your answer...because it was never going to come. You cannot explain in any way how the blast went inwards and you are using absurd circular logic to dismiss it.
YOU claim you can't see an obscured hole...therefore the most ridiculous shite.....it is YOUR burden of proof to explain damage that is plane sized....plane direction and consistent with colossal kinetic force. People saw planes, heard planes, video taped planes, boarded planes and disappeared forever. You have no idea how to explain your brain numbing crap.
How was the blast done? There is no mechanism to push an explosion of necessary force inwards. There should be your logical start point. But no planers don't use logic and buttwater carries no logical value.
-
1 hour ago, JacksonsGhost said:
Debate is good as it allows us all to reach greater comprehension. Sadly, it's a skill that is disappearing.
My experience of debate with "truthers" tells me that no such comprehension will ever be reached. It is dig your heels in and maintain the belief at all costs....every single time.
-
1 hour ago, Reet Hard said:
Hush now baby cakes no one is interested in your cluster B thoughtless ramblings.
So after your "just asking questions phase" the real you emerges. You are a no planer then? You aren't the spokesperson for "no one"
None of my thoughts are "ramblings" and I don't fumble around pigeon holing a cast of hundreds and hundreds into silly compartments that don't work. If you were interested in who I was it is on my profile page.
We have a no planer citing a bloody building with smoke in front of it on a blurred video saying I can't see the hole....therefore ludicrous-shite.com.
And you by association agree with his dopey claim.
-
1 hour ago, mishy said:
After pages and pages of waffle, here's all you need to know about the (lack of) planes on 911. No plane shaped hole at impact.
But feel free to carry on going round in circles. Asking how many people were involved etc is irrelevant, and not being able to answer these question is also irrelevant. Just because "no planers" can't say how many people were in on it, that for some reason means the planes were real? lol
Spam. Blurred video already answered. I don't care whether you agree or not.
How was the exterior blown inwards.
Shhhhhhhhhh.
-
1 hour ago, JacksonsGhost said:
I believe planes struck both buildings. The aircraft are canards used to deflect any debate on what really happened. It's still working very well to this very day as you so eloquently illustrate.
Dude....I agree with you totally. I'm not doing the deflecting...maybe you should address this issue at the no-plane team.
-
13 minutes ago, JacksonsGhost said:
These holes that you keep bleating on about are utterly moot.
Explain the holes dude. It's a fundamental issue!!
They were made by planes. That works.
They were made by no planes. Doesn't work.
13 minutes ago, JacksonsGhost said:All buildings came down in a manner that is simply not consistent with the official line or "reality".
Thank you for sharing your opinion. That has nothing to do with "no-planes".
13 minutes ago, JacksonsGhost said:So, what kind of word salad are you serving up today? I await.
If the use of words confuses you, shall I simplify my request?
I would like you to explain how columns on the WTC1/2 perimeters were blown inwards to simulate the shape of a plane.
-
On 10/1/2020 at 9:00 PM, Comedy Time said:
Sure you did....
@alexa Do you EVER respond to in your face evidence?
Second posting, kind of answering itself really!!
Here are some clues.
1. SKY TV - so named because it is broadcast from the frickin' SKY, transmits its signal from a satellite in geosynchronous orbit.
2 http://www.satcure.co.uk/tech/satposition.htm
3. The dishes used to receive a signal and the only thing connected to the receiver box all point at the sky, the same location.
Any chance you can stop doing this
and answer honestly?
-
Sheesh - get a frickin' room. Mods will be along soon I reckon, all this off topic guff.
@theo102 I await your overall version of 911.
@Reet Hard I await a response to my clouseau post. PLUS - Your claim it was the wrong engine verified and now a response to this post that you seemed to have missed from that link I gave you...
Source: https://plus.google.com/+FredRobel/posts/HmQ8WfDkQVj
Fred Robel
Aircraft & Aviation Maintenance
Apr 29, 2017
The TOBI duct, which provides cooling air to the High Pressure Turbine disk, pokes out amidst a sea of clear plastic wrap, as it encircles the engine center shaft area.
We keep the plastic wrap over the outer part of the engine, to keep from dropping things down into the combustion can, through the NGV assemblies, which ring the outside of the area.
Pratt JT9D-7R4D aircraft engine buildup.Content from external source
-
1
-
-
Just now, alexa said:
Well thanks to the Lord I'm not lost in all this Space nonoccurence stuff. Alleluia
Yes you are. I imagine if there is a god, he is face palming at your refusal to educate yourself.
-
Just now, theo102 said:
Not true. No one has put forth an alternative explanation for the flight paths.
They researched where to go to hide their paths to target. Radar dead spots.
-
Just now, theo102 said:
Boring, meaning it's obvious that you have no point to make.
No, just godforsaken mind numbingly boring. This isn't debate now it's side issue nonsense.
Just now, theo102 said:What "unfeasible nonsense" do you think I'm advocating, specifically?
God knows, I can never understand which version of the 911 conspiracy claims any one of you is pushing. How about you fill me in and we go from there?
-
13 minutes ago, Reet Hard said:
You clearly don't understand compartmentalisation.
Yes I do. You clearly don't understand compartmentalisation.
Answer the post properly and explain how these simple groups wouldn't know what is going on!!
demolition experts/plane part dropping teams/body disposal/video fakery teams/co-ordinators/plane disposal team/body burning and dna depositers/fake phone recording teams/fake tv teams ....on and on.
-
4 minutes ago, theo102 said:
No, Occam's Razor doesn't claim to give you the truth, only the most probable explanation.
And right there is why 911 conspiracies don't fit. There are about a dozen of them with multiple variations. You lot can't even agree with yourselves.
Nukes, space weapons, no planes, some planes no pentagon plane, joos.....
-
8 minutes ago, theo102 said:
Special pleading backed by a straw man about Bush and Cheney.
This is getting really boring now. Substitute Bush and Cheney with whoever postulated this totally unfeasible nonsense.
8 minutes ago, theo102 said:Occam's Razor is a general tool for reasoning about theories, there's nothing that would exclude theories about 9/11.
All things being equal, the simplest explanation......WHOAH there! The "simplest explanation"? Dude!
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, alexa said:
You can't possibly believe all this B/S, you must have the mind of a child.
Hahaha that comment could have been written specially for you. You avoid hundreds of hours of clear weightlessness in favour of some idiot yooootubbber who makes a series of stupid claims.
in order:
1. He moves his hands like that because his sleeves are riding up his shoulders. The conclusion the video maker says is moronic conjecture with ZERO evidence.
2. He is pulled down by his colleague. My brain hurts at you not seeing this..
3. Her shirt ripples in a weightless cabin. Ditto
4. The folds on her shirt.
You are lost and unreachable, but hopefully casual observers don't fall down into your crazy world.
-
Interesting interpretation of an innocent advert - and bizarrely a spam comment about the soopah secret space gibberish within this thread
.
These adverts are produced by advertising agencies who create graphics and images and they then get accepted or refused. I find it extremely far fetched to think that instruction would have been given for the 666 nonsense, or someone in the ad agency doing it deliberately.
-
@Reet Hard You asked about Inspector Noclouseau - where is your response to mine? I am pretty much responding to everything, many of my posts or most of the contents with them are not being addressed.
-
1 minute ago, Reet Hard said:
It is relevant because it shows how people never check the facts and just follow the party line and so no you don't need lots of people to be "in on it" because most will never question anything thereby destroying one of your key arguments.
It seems to me the problem isn't that some people think too much it's that most don't think at all and just repeat what they are told by the institutions they work for and the media.
That is nothing to do with...
demolition experts/plane part dropping teams/body disposal/video fakery teams/co-ordinators/plane disposal team/body burning and dna depositers/fake phone recording teams/fake tv teams ....on and on. Your claim is ridiculous.
-
4 minutes ago, theo102 said:
Obvious like this post?
Nope. Why wouldn't the terrorists simply note the range and type of radar and work out blind spots. Don't quote Occam's razor for 911 - it really doesn't work. And since you are deliberately avoiding large parts of my post....
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9725182&postcount=11
"What are the chances of successfully pulling off an inside job" is an example of subjective probability, not objective probability. Example:
Objective probability: It's the night before the 3rd day of the Battle of Gettysburg. Gen. Lee and his staff are relaxing, shooting craps. Gen. Pickett has the dice and his point is 10. Armistead offers Lee a 3:2 payoff if Pickett makes his point.
Longstreet advises Lee not to take it, as the odds are actually 2:1.
Subjective probability: Gen. Lee asks Longstreet what he thinks their chances are of successfully storming across 1/2 mile of open country up Cemetery Ridge in the face of of massed Union Infantry and Artillery.
Longstreet answers, "To be brutally frank, General, I think our chances are piss-poor."
Subjective probability: Bush and Cheney ask Rumsfeld what are their chances of staging 4 fake airliner hijackings, landing them at a secret airbase and murdering the passengers and crew, disposing of their bodies, and substituting specially built drone aircraft built to look like airliners, flying them into the Twin Towers exactly where demolition charges have been planted and the demolition charges surviving the impacts and fires and actually it's the demolition charges that bring down the buildings because there's no way that impact and fire could do that, and we'll plant extra demolition charges below the impact point because we're not sure that the collapse will continue all the way to the bottom but we know that flaming debris will hit WTC 7 and start fires so we've planted demolition charges there, too which will survive hours of fires and although everyone knows fire can't harm steel, we'll blame the destruction of WTC on the fires and meanwhile we'll fire a missile into the Pentagon in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses we can't control and maybe some will have cameras and the missile will hit and ignite thousands of gallons of jet fuel we've stashed inside the Pentagon without anyone knowing it, creating a giant fireball, plant airliner debris around and inside the Pentagon, convincing everyone it was really an airliner, and let's also crash one in Pennsylvania just to make it look good, and nobody will suspect a thing, except for a few Conspiradroids?
Rumsfeld answers, "Are you guys high, or just out of your [expletive deleted] minds?"Occam just crapped his pants.
4 minutes ago, theo102 said:Depends on whether it's relevant or not - I'm not going to defend a position that I didn't take.
Okay, I'll assume you think it ludicrous that a large number of people could do any of this undetected for ever and ever.
-
Just now, Reet Hard said:
I agree people are terrible at keeping secrets which makes it important you understand how compartmentalisation works
It's important for you to read my posts properly before you once again attempt to "educate me" on something I read and fully understood 25 years ago!
Just now, Reet Hard said:Also understand ho it is drummed out of people, practically form birth, to think for themselves or question anything.
Irrelevant and a generalised nonsensical claim. It implies that only conspiracy theorists "think for themselves" which is so far from the truth it is almost opposite.
Just now, Reet Hard said:In most workplaces people keep there mouths shut and the ones who don't , regardless of ability and performance, tend to get fired.
And they always tell friends and family by way of a gripe. No deathbed confessions, no document leaks, no paper trails. Your claim is conspiracy generalised cobblers.
All the people setting demolition charges know what they are doing.
All the people disposing of the planes and bodies....well!!!
List is exhaustive.....
-
3 minutes ago, Reet Hard said:
No, you sent an image and text from Metabunk which if you read it without conformation bias proves nothing.
And you sent nothing. The page addresses the claim - of which you supplied no mention.
The Facts of WTC PLANNED & CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
in 911
Posted
Posted already.