.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
Comedy Time
-
Posts
794 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Comedy Time
-
-
Just now, Reet Hard said:
Why do you think they let it happen?
Middle East leverage. Why do you think they did it?
-
1 minute ago, Reet Hard said:
That's interesting in reality very few people need to know or be involved.
It's called compartmentalisation.
Yeah right. That's called generalised bollocks.
-
38 minutes ago, Red pill taken said:
I'd like to butt in hereof I may, comedy time do you believe the official narrative about 911?
Most of it. I'm a "probably they let it happen". Not sure they realised quite how devastating it was going to be. It isn't anything I would put my house on though.
The problem is that the conspiracy claims are just so improbable and I see very compelling counter explanations.
-
32 minutes ago, Red pill taken said:
Explosion proof passports, gotta love um
Didn't buy that one. But it is possible I suppose.
-
50 minutes ago, Reet Hard said:
I agree they don't and I would like to add that buildings were designed to survive a strike from a Boeing 707.
what do you think was the fatal flaw in the design/construction of the building that meant they didn't survive a strike from a 767?
You see the problem isn't that truthers don't provide empirical evidence that illustrates holes in the official narrative it's that many people never look into the validity of what they are being told.
If you don't mind me asking Comedy, why are you so sure that the official version of events is true.
I looked into the validity of the conspiracy theories. It leaves not many alternatives. I find the potential list of peoplevin the need to know list fairly excessive.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196440&highlight=vesey
-
4 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:
Great come back, its because you're stumped on that one.
Back at you dude. You have the burden of proof.
-
Just now, JacksonsGhost said:
Mr. Comedy, please elucidate exactly how 1/4 mile high buildings, designed to take a Boeing 707 impact, fell into it's own footprint after being struck by a vastly smaller aircraft.
I asked you to explain the inwards explosion dude. You first.
Oh and building designers always get everything spot on don't they.
Just now, JacksonsGhost said:Do you have an excuse for WTC7, yet?
No, do I need one?
Just now, JacksonsGhost said:Your gaslighting skills need some work.
You are the one asking if I am a lemming dude. Check your own skills.
-
Just now, Haunted Universe said:
Hey don't forget Popular Mechanics hehehe.
Hey don't forget to ignore it all because you can't answer any of it hehehe.
-
1 minute ago, Reet Hard said:
Does that include the engine form the wrong plane that they found on the ground?
No, some parts that were not blocked were ejected. Who told you it was the wrong engine? A truther site?
-
2 minutes ago, Reet Hard said:
Actually crashing a plane into a specific target is rather difficult.
Not if it's a big enough target. All 3 were.
-
1 minute ago, JacksonsGhost said:
It does not matter.
Sure it does. you were wrong, the holes WERE plane shaped and the explosions went INwards. Explain that without using comedy explosives.
1 minute ago, JacksonsGhost said:The building was pulled, same difference. FYI: Pulled has been in use well before the farce of 9/11.
No it wasn't. A plane hit them both and weakened the flooring. Pulled is a term for something entirely different.
1 minute ago, JacksonsGhost said:I do hope you're not a lemming.
You don't even know what one is do you?
-
Just now, Haunted Universe said:
Yet we see FUCK ALL upon the fake impact. Your landing gear etc, where is it in the explosion? I dont see a single shred of debris from a plane being blown out.
Hmmmm well dude, that would be because it all went in to the building.
Just now, Haunted Universe said:You still havnt explained how full strips of columns are being blown out, impossible if a plane has smashed through it.
I don't need to. You need to show why it is impossible.
Just now, Haunted Universe said:Pull another pathetic explanation out of your ass why don't you.
It didn't come from my ass, it wasn't pathetic and there were planes. Try not to lose your rag again.
-
2 minutes ago, Reet Hard said:
Some of the best pilots in the world are on record saying they could not have flown those planes at 500mph plus through the skyscrapers and hit the towers.
By the way did you find an schematics of the construction of the towers?
Your theory about square panels is interesting
Yeah, some of the ones in ae911. Others say it's rather easy to crash a plane. The hardest one was the Pentagon and people do it all the time on plane simulators. There are a couple of youtube vids.
-
2 minutes ago, JacksonsGhost said:
No, there was not.
Comedy panto time. Oh yes there was.....
-
"Now imagine how the hell they are going to rig those wires up for that 6 minutes of ISS footage"
YOU DIDN'T answer that question. A green screen doesn't move around the full ISS on a bleedin tour
You haven't watched it have you? That picture is typical conspiracy theorist fail. No reference or source to enable it to be checked. Green screens?
How about you actually start watching things that show your belief is misguided instead of ignoring them all?
-
51 minutes ago, JacksonsGhost said:
There was not a plane shaped hole.
Yes there was.
51 minutes ago, JacksonsGhost said:Aluminium/Composite does not fare well against steel I beams.
It does if it is equipped with people, trolleys, food, equipment, luggage, cross beams, landing gear, engines, fuel, seats, carpets, lights, toilets, sinks and various other bits and bobs, plus it is travelling at 500 + mph and carrying gargantuan kinetic energy.
51 minutes ago, JacksonsGhost said:These buildings were all pulled.
No, really they weren't and the term is demolished. That term is the "truther" term used to implicate Silverstein.
51 minutes ago, JacksonsGhost said:The planes were only for the lemmings.
No, they were for the travellers and the people who took control of them and crashed them.
-
55 minutes ago, mishy said:
There's no plane shaped hole in the buliding, blurred or otherwise, immediately after the impact.
Yes there was.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, mishy said:
Here's a better analysis of the first strike. No plane shaped hole until few seconds after impact.
Uhuh...bit blurred don't you think?
24 minutes ago, mishy said:It has nothing to do with the capabilities of the video recorder, and anyone saying so is just being dishonest.
It is totally an issue with a blurred video recorder and anyone claiming otherwise is telling very large pork pies. I cite as my evidence the very blurred image you just posted, the very blurred left hand wall on the original claim and the blurry plane approaching it. Blurred - the capabilities of the video, plus of course all the numerous conversion/compression/multiple uploading.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, - TZC - said:
I wonder what you say to this. Looks to me as if the plane shaped hole is created a little late. Can you explain that.
I cannot explain why you think it looked a little late.
It wasn't. late - it's a video camera at the limit of its capabilities and that is a digital copy that has had unknown uploads, compression changes, frame rate changes and was originally created from a video tape that wasn't great to begin with.
-
2
-
-
On 9/7/2020 at 11:02 PM, Haunted Universe said:
I thought that for a long while as well, but when you look at the imapct hole it has obviously been curated. No way in a million years would any projectile create straight lines squares and rectangles.
Wow, you repeat your same claim here when you already had that explained. These are rectangular panels that have been blasted off. The actual entry hole is not nice and neat. Explain to all who read this, exactly how the blast went inwards and created a plane shaped hole.
-
@singhz312 Dude, have you ever heard the expression "gish gallup"?
I believe I have a reasonable amount of un-addressed content aimed at you and you have just moved on to variations of the same claim. Using a blurred zoomed video tracking a very fast object will cause all sorts of imaging errors.These aren't digital HD films they are crusty videos that get converted to digital and uploaded god knows how many times.Every time it does this some sort of degradation goes on, often from compression.
On your example, the exposure for the left edge of the building is so poor you can "see" the sky behind it. That should tell you all you need to know about it. If I had to guess at what is happening it would be the left edge of the building has bled across the image slightly - clearly there is no positive line there.
-
6 hours ago, Haunted Universe said:
Ignore him
That's what you excel at.
Explain how the buildings show inwards explosions at the impact points....nothing comes outwards.
That is some impossible magic right there. You ignore because you cannot answer.
-
27 minutes ago, alexa said:
No I'm not trolling, I honestly thought they received there signals from underground cables.
Sure you did....
-
9 minutes ago, singhz312 said:
Mr (not a newbie on david icke forum) 326 posts?
I have probably made about 30,000 if you include the old forum and the rant room which didn't add to post count. But thanks anyway.
9 minutes ago, singhz312 said:Ok so going by your logic, what about the plane pieces no plane shrapnel can be seen falling, you're now gonna tell me they got evaporated?
They were ejected at high velocity out of the exit holes. I recall one video showing the engine, I'll see if I can dig it up. You just twiddle your thumbs, do something productive.
The Facts of WTC PLANNED & CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
in 911
Posted
No...he has the burden of proof. Ludicrous claims require proof....not the word of somebody who is just saying "yeah no planes ".
Plane sized holes exploding inwards. Case closed.