|
bitrebel (OP)
|
 |
September 11, 2011, 06:39:52 PM |
|
|
Why does Bitrebel have 65+ Ignores?
Because Bitrebel says things that some people do not want YOU to hear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The grue lurks in the darkest places of the earth. Its favorite diet is adventurers, but its insatiable appetite is tempered by its fear of light. No grue has ever been seen by the light of day, and few have survived its fearsome jaws to tell the tale.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
PinkiePie
Member
 Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
GROUNDED FOR TROLLING
|
|
September 11, 2011, 07:47:29 PM |
|
Why does everyone have to do nothing but talk about this stupid terrorist attack. It was like ten years ago, this is a HAPPY day for some of us.
|
--
MOST HONEST FORUM MEMBER AWARD 2011
Cross my heart and hope to fly, stick a cupcake in my eye!
|
|
|
|
Grouver (BtcBalance)
|
|
September 11, 2011, 07:56:33 PM
Last edit: September 11, 2011, 08:13:54 PM by Grouver (BtcBalance) |
|
I know for a fact the goverment isn't telling the truth about what caused 9/11. But I cannot agree with the stuff that is displayed as the truth in this video. |
|
|
|
|
bitrebel (OP)
|
|
September 11, 2011, 08:00:54 PM |
|
I know for a fact the goverment isn't telling the truth behind 911. But I cannot agree with the stuff that is displayed as the truth in this video. Can you explain what it is that you do not agree with? Which positions, or facts displayed? What is it exactly you do not agree with? |
Why does Bitrebel have 65+ Ignores?
Because Bitrebel says things that some people do not want YOU to hear.
|
|
|
the joint
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
|
|
September 11, 2011, 08:48:45 PM |
|
Inconclusive. Demonstrates nothing. Most of everything in there is based upon faulty assumptions or flawed analysis. |
|
|
|
|
|
Inedible
|
|
September 11, 2011, 08:49:52 PM |
|
Why does everyone have to do nothing but talk about this stupid terrorist attack. It was like ten years ago, this is a HAPPY day for some of us.
lol - I had to read that twice to make sure I hadn't read it wrong. |
If this post was useful, interesting or entertaining, then you've misunderstood.
|
|
|
|
bitrebel (OP)
|
|
September 11, 2011, 08:53:36 PM |
|
Inconclusive. Demonstrates nothing. Most of everything in there is based upon faulty assumptions or flawed analysis. You cannot say one single thing that retorts anything in the video. As a typical operative, you will avoid all issues demonstrated in the video. You will never ever bring to the table, the contrasting opinion. You will leave it out completely, by saying things like just said. You are clearly delusional or intentionally misleading. You said absolutely nothing in your post to rebut anything stated in the video. You showed no evidence you even watched it at all. So far, you fail. |
Why does Bitrebel have 65+ Ignores?
Because Bitrebel says things that some people do not want YOU to hear.
|
|
|
the joint
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
|
|
September 11, 2011, 09:14:59 PM |
|
Inconclusive. Demonstrates nothing. Most of everything in there is based upon faulty assumptions or flawed analysis. You cannot say one single thing that retorts anything in the video. As a typical operative, you will avoid all issues demonstrated in the video. You will never ever bring to the table, the contrasting opinion. You will leave it out completely, by saying things like just said. You are clearly delusional or intentionally misleading. You said absolutely nothing in your post to rebut anything stated in the video. You showed no evidence you even watched it at all. So far, you fail. Ok, here's an easy one. The "multiple axis" argument is bullshit as clearly the cameras are on different axis and at different heights. How about the one where it's like, "what happened to the backdrop?!" and "the plane is coming in parallel to the ground here, and it's divebombing here?" Yeah, no shit, cause one camera is clearly positioned above the tower (you can see the top of the roof) and the other is clearly positioned beneath the top of the tower. In one case, you will see the sky cause camera is pointed up, in the other case, you will see the ground cause camera is pointed down. This can also create the impression that in one case the plane is 'divebombing' and in the other it is not. Here's another one. The nose of the plane going through and coming out the other side of the tower? A skyscraper is like a huge column of air. If you displace the air in that column quickly, it has to go somewhere. So, if plane flying 550 mph flies into the tower, compressed air will burst out the opposing side. By the way, this is why in other conspiracy videos when they argue that you can see "explosions" at the bottom of the WTC immediately preceding its collapse, the explosions are not really explosions at all. When the tower begins to collapse, all that compressed air gets pushed down and so all the windows get blown out at the bottom before it has even fallen. It's extremely plausible that the 'nose' you see coming out of the building is debris of a similar shape. The audio analysis is equally bullshit. Do you have any idea how different the same sound can seem when it's recorded with different mics in different locations with different wind/environmental noises? Overwhelmingly loud sounds can also spike the limiter on your mic such that it clips and you won't hear anything at all. It's quite possible you could be recording with a particular type of mic and not hear any explosion. Also, if you have a drum kit, that 'reverse cymbal loop' sounds nothing like a cymbal at all. By the way, I own a drum kit, a recording program with a professional drum sampler, and various mics. Just a few. |
|
|
|
|
ElectricMucus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057
Marketing manager - GO MP
|
|
September 11, 2011, 09:26:25 PM |
|
It's freaking hilarious to hear the same arguments over and over from different people on different boards all the time.
If you ask me the WTC wasn't even blown up on the same day as the TV broadcast. But I have no way to prove it and no incentive to even attempt it which is also my point in this discussion.
You people are like arguing soccer fanatics who aren't even fit enough to run for 20minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
the joint
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
|
|
September 11, 2011, 09:33:06 PM |
|
It's freaking hilarious to hear the same arguments over and over from different people on different boards all the time.
If you ask me the WTC wasn't even blown up on the same day as the TV broadcast. But I have no way to prove it and no incentive to even attempt it which is also my point in this discussion.
You people are like arguing soccer fanatics who aren't even fit enough to run for 20minutes.
That's why arguing plausibility/implausibility is much easier than arguing definitively one way or the other. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ElectricMucus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057
Marketing manager - GO MP
|
|
September 11, 2011, 09:56:51 PM |
|
It's freaking hilarious to hear the same arguments over and over from different people on different boards all the time.
If you ask me the WTC wasn't even blown up on the same day as the TV broadcast. But I have no way to prove it and no incentive to even attempt it which is also my point in this discussion.
You people are like arguing soccer fanatics who aren't even fit enough to run for 20minutes.
That's why arguing plausibility/implausibility is much easier than arguing definitively one way or the other. The thing is I heard every theory you people are discussing now and those you don't 10 years ago on #wtc during the broadcast. |
|
|
|
|
the joint
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
|
|
September 11, 2011, 09:59:25 PM |
|
It's freaking hilarious to hear the same arguments over and over from different people on different boards all the time.
If you ask me the WTC wasn't even blown up on the same day as the TV broadcast. But I have no way to prove it and no incentive to even attempt it which is also my point in this discussion.
You people are like arguing soccer fanatics who aren't even fit enough to run for 20minutes.
That's why arguing plausibility/implausibility is much easier than arguing definitively one way or the other. The thing is I heard every theory you people are discussing now and those you don't 10 years ago on #wtc during the broadcast. Yep. Sad isn't it? |
|
|
|
|
|
bitrebel (OP)
|
|
September 11, 2011, 10:00:45 PM |
|
We were shown Previously produced CGI video on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001
There were no hijackers, and the eye witnesses to planes were paid actors and SIMS that never existed.
That's the unbelievable truth.
|
Why does Bitrebel have 65+ Ignores?
Because Bitrebel says things that some people do not want YOU to hear.
|
|
|
the joint
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
|
|
September 11, 2011, 10:03:58 PM |
|
We were shown Previously produced CGI video on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001
There were no hijackers, and the eye witnesses to planes were paid actors and SIMS that never existed.
That's the unbelievable truth.
Yep, sure it is. Cause the video said so, right? |
|
|
|
|
|
bitrebel (OP)
|
|
September 11, 2011, 10:06:24 PM |
|
We were shown Previously produced CGI video on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001
There were no hijackers, and the eye witnesses to planes were paid actors and SIMS that never existed.
That's the unbelievable truth.
Yep, sure it is. Cause the video said so, right? You are one of the most ignorant people in the whole world. Go back to sleep. You have never been awoken and likely never will be. |
Why does Bitrebel have 65+ Ignores?
Because Bitrebel says things that some people do not want YOU to hear.
|
|
|
the joint
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
|
|
September 11, 2011, 10:11:18 PM |
|
We were shown Previously produced CGI video on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001
There were no hijackers, and the eye witnesses to planes were paid actors and SIMS that never existed.
That's the unbelievable truth.
Yep, sure it is. Cause the video said so, right? You are one of the most ignorant people in the whole world. Go back to sleep. You have never been awoken and likely never will be. Haha alright bro. I told you why that video proves nothing. If you care to rebut, feel free. |
|
|
|
|
|
bitrebel (OP)
|
|
September 11, 2011, 10:12:01 PM |
|
I've shown the video http://www.septemberclues.info to at least a dozen people, in person. Friends of mine and people I know. Every single one of them agreed they were fooled completely by the lies and the media and the government. They ALL concluded the film was very intriguing and accurate as far as they could tell. Most people who have watched it will agree. But there is always some jackass agent or operative on board to try to discredit the movie. Watch it for yourself and see. |
Why does Bitrebel have 65+ Ignores?
Because Bitrebel says things that some people do not want YOU to hear.
|
|
|
the joint
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
|
|
September 11, 2011, 10:12:39 PM |
|
I've shown the video http://www.septemberclues.info to at least a dozen people, in person. Friends of mine and people I know. Every single one of them agreed they were fooled completely by the lies and the media and the government. They ALL concluded the film was very intriguing and accurate as far as they could tell. Most people who have watched it will agree. But there is always some jackass agent or operative on board to try to discredit the movie. Watch it for yourself and see. Did watch it. Faulty analysis, inconclusive, and I told you why. |
|
|
|
|
|
trentzb
|
|
September 11, 2011, 10:13:59 PM |
|
We were shown Previously produced CGI video on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001
There were no hijackers, and the eye witnesses to planes were paid actors and SIMS that never existed.
That's the unbelievable truth.
Yep, sure it is. Cause the video said so, right? You are one of the most ignorant people in the whole world. Go back to sleep. You have never been awoken and likely never will be. Personal attacks are not necessary are they? What could you possibly gain by a personal attack. If he doesn't agree with your point of view how would that negatively affect you? |
|
|
|
|
|
